RDEx-CSOP: Feasibility-Aware Reconstructed Differential Evolution with Adaptive epsilon-Constraint Ranking
arXiv:2603.27090v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Constrained single-objective numerical optimisation requires both feasibility maintenance and strong objective-value convergence under limited evaluation budgets. This report documents RDEx-CSOP, a constrained differential evolution variant used in the IEEE CEC 2025 numerical optimisation competition (C06 special session). RDEx-CSOP combines success-history parameter adaptation with an exploitation-biased hybrid search and an {\epsilon}-constraint handling mechanism with a time-varying threshold. We evaluate RDEx-CSOP on the official CEC 2025 C — Sichen Tao, Yifei Yang, Ruihan Zhao, Kaiyu Wang, Sicheng Liu, Shangce Gao
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Constrained single-objective numerical optimisation requires both feasibility maintenance and strong objective-value convergence under limited evaluation budgets. This report documents RDEx-CSOP, a constrained differential evolution variant used in the IEEE CEC 2025 numerical optimisation competition (C06 special session). RDEx-CSOP combines success-history parameter adaptation with an exploitation-biased hybrid search and an {\epsilon}-constraint handling mechanism with a time-varying threshold. We evaluate RDEx-CSOP on the official CEC 2025 CSOP benchmark using the U-score framework (Speed, Accuracy, and Constraint categories). The results show that RDEx-CSOP achieves the highest total score and the best average rank among all released comparison algorithms, mainly through strong speed and competitive constraint-handling performance across the 28 benchmark functions.
Subjects:
Neural and Evolutionary Computing (cs.NE); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2603.27090 [cs.NE]
(or arXiv:2603.27090v1 [cs.NE] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.27090
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Submission history
From: Sichen Tao [view email] [v1] Sat, 28 Mar 2026 02:23:11 UTC (129 KB)
Sign in to highlight and annotate this article
Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
researchpaperarxiv
![First time NeurIPS. How different is it from low-ranked conferences? [D]](https://d2xsxph8kpxj0f.cloudfront.net/310419663032563854/konzwo8nGf8Z4uZsMefwMr/default-img-robot-hand-JvPW6jsLFTCtkgtb97Kys5.webp)
First time NeurIPS. How different is it from low-ranked conferences? [D]
I'm a PhD student and already published papers in A/B ranked paper (10+). My field of work never allowed me to work on something really exciting and a core A* conference. But finally after years I think I have work worthy of some discussion at the top venue. I'm referring to papers (my field and top papers) from previous editions and I notice that there's a big difference on how people write, how they put their message on table and also it is too theoretical sometimes. Are there any golden rules people follow who frequently get into these conferences? Should I be soft while making novelty claims? Also those who moved from submitting to niche-conferences to NeurIPS/ICML/CVPR, did you change your approach? My field is imaging in healthcare. submitted by /u/ade17_in [link] [comments]
AI can describe human experiences but lacks experience in an actual ‘body.’ UCLA researchers say understanding this ‘body gap’ may matter for safety - UCLA Health
AI can describe human experiences but lacks experience in an actual ‘body.’ UCLA researchers say understanding this ‘body gap’ may matter for safety UCLA Health
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
More in Research Papers
Label-free pathological subtyping of non-small cell lung cancer using deep classification and virtual immunohistochemical staining
npj Digital Medicine, Published online: 03 April 2026; doi:10.1038/s41746-026-02557-x Label-free pathological subtyping of non-small cell lung cancer using deep classification and virtual immunohistochemical staining
First time NeurIPS. How different is it from low-ranked conferences? [D]
I'm a PhD student and already published papers in A/B ranked paper (10+). My field of work never allowed me to work on something really exciting and a core A* conference. But finally after years I think I have work worthy of some discussion at the top venue. I'm referring to papers (my field and top papers) from previous editions and I notice that there's a big difference on how people write, how they put their message on table and also it is too theoretical sometimes. Are there any golden rules people follow who frequently get into these conferences? Should I be soft while making novelty claims? Also those who moved from submitting to niche-conferences to NeurIPS/ICML/CVPR, did you change your approach? My field is imaging in healthcare. submitted by /u/ade17_in [link] [comments]
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!