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.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Numerical Optimization | CEC F1 2022 | Average Value3 | 18 | |
| Numerical Optimization | CEC F2 2022 | Average4.222 | 18 | |
| Numerical Optimization | CEC F10 2022 | Average Value2.118 | 18 | |
| Numerical Optimization | CEC F3 2022 | Average Score6 | 18 | |
| Global Optimization | CEC Function F10 (D=20) 2022 | Final Best Objective Value1.233 | 10 | |
| Global Optimization | CEC Function F3 (D=20) 2022 | F3 Objective Value (D=20)6 | 10 | |
| Global Optimization | 10 optimization benchmark cases 5 functions x 2 dimensions | Average Rank3.15 | 10 | |
| Global Optimization | CEC Function F1 (D=20) 2022 | Best Objective Value3.073 | 10 | |
| Global Optimization | CEC Function F2 (D=20) 2022 | Best Objective Value (F2, D=20)4.479 | 10 | |
| Global Optimization | CEC Function F6 (D=20) 2022 | Best Objective Value5.155 | 10 |