Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

Frenetic Cat-inspired Particle Optimization: a Markov state-switching hybrid swarm optimizer with application to cardiac digital twinning

About

Designing optimizers that remain effective under tight evaluation budgets is critical in expensive black-box settings such as cardiac digital twinning. We propose Frenetic Cat-inspired Particle Optimization (FCPO), a hybrid swarm method that couples particle swarm optimization-like dynamics with an explicit-state Markov switching controller to schedule exploration and refinement operators online. FCPO integrates (i) state-conditioned bounded motion, (ii) an elite-difference global jump operator to escape stagnation, (iii) eigen-space guided local refinement from elite covariance, and (iv) linear population size reduction to control late-stage computational cost. We benchmark FCPO on five representative functions from the Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) 2022 suite (F1, F2, F3, F6 and F10) at dimensions D$\in${10,20} over 30 independent runs, comparing against PSO, CSO, CLPSO, SHADE, L-SHADE and CMA-ES. FCPO achieves the lowest mean runtime across the ten benchmark cases (average 0.183 s), about 2.3x faster than CMA-ES and 2.6x faster than L-SHADE in our Python implementation. On the multimodal composition function F10 at D=20, FCPO attains the best mean objective (9.625x 10^2 $\pm$ 1.275x 10^3) and remains faster than CMA-ES (0.602 s vs. 1.126 s mean runtime). On structured landscapes (F1--F3) and on the hybrid function (F6), CMA-ES remains the most accurate method, while FCPO substantially improves over classical swarms and maintains a favorable accuracy--runtime trade-off. Finally, in a ventricular activation digital twin calibration task, FCPO reaches the target electrocardiogram (ECG) fidelity (RMSE<0.1 mV) within ~ 40 iterations and produces physiologically plausible activation maps with robust convergence across repeated initializations, supporting its use as a practical optimizer for expensive inverse problems.

Jorge S\'anchez, Guadalupe Garc\'ia-Isla, Sandra Perez-Herrero, Beatriz Trenor, Javier Saiz• 2026

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Numerical OptimizationCEC F1 2022
Average Value3
18
Numerical OptimizationCEC F2 2022
Average4.222
18
Numerical OptimizationCEC F10 2022
Average Value2.118
18
Numerical OptimizationCEC F3 2022
Average Score6
18
Global OptimizationCEC Function F10 (D=20) 2022
Final Best Objective Value1.233
10
Global OptimizationCEC Function F3 (D=20) 2022
F3 Objective Value (D=20)6
10
Global Optimization10 optimization benchmark cases 5 functions x 2 dimensions
Average Rank3.15
10
Global OptimizationCEC Function F1 (D=20) 2022
Best Objective Value3.073
10
Global OptimizationCEC Function F2 (D=20) 2022
Best Objective Value (F2, D=20)4.479
10
Global OptimizationCEC Function F6 (D=20) 2022
Best Objective Value5.155
10
Showing 10 of 11 rows

Other info

Follow for update