MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009993782 · doi:10.1109/tevc.2015.2395091

Evolutionary Nonlinear Projection

2015· article· en· W2009993782 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Ashlock, Andrew McEachern

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvolutionary algorithmEvolutionary computationCluster analysisArtificial intelligenceProjection (relational algebra)Computer sciencePopulationFeature vectorSet (abstract data type)Nonlinear systemOptimization problemAlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines evolutionary nonlinear projection (NLP), a form of multidimensional scaling (MDS) performed with an evolutionary algorithm. MDS is a family of techniques for producing a low dimensional data set whose points have a one-to-one correspondence with the points of a higher dimensional data set with the added property that distances or dissimilarities in the higher dimensional space are preserved as much as possible in the lower dimensional space. The goal is typically visualization but may also be clustering or other forms of analysis. In this paper, we review current methods of NLP and go on to characterize NLP as an evolutionary computation problem, gaining insight into MDS as an optimization problem. Two different mutation operators, one introduced in this paper, are compared and parameter studies are performed on mutation rate and population size. The new mutation operator is found to be superior. NLP is found to be a problem where small population sizes exhibit superior performance. It is demonstrated experimentally that NLP is a multimodal optimization problem. Two broad classes of projection problems are identified, one of which yields consistent high-quality results and the other of which has many optima, all of low quality. A number of applications of the technique are presented, including projections of feature vectors for polyominos, of vectors that are members of an error correcting code, of behavioral assessments of a collection of agents, and of features derived from DNA sequences.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Evolutionary ComputationSame topicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207