MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036552982 · doi:10.1109/cec.2010.5585953

Evolving ARTMAP neural networks using Multi-Objective Particle Swarm Optimization

2010· article· en· W2036552982 on OpenAlexaff
Éric Granger, Donavan Prieur, Jean-François Connolly

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationArtificial neural networkComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningFuzzy logic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a supervised learning strategy based on a Multi-Objective Particle Swarm Optimization (MOPSO) is introduced for ARTMAP neural networks. It is based on the concept of neural network evolution in that particles of a MOPSO swarm (i.e., network solutions) seek to determine user-defined parameters and network (weights and architecture) such that generalisation error and network resources are minimized. The performance of this strategy has been assessed with fuzzy ARTMAP using synthetic and real-world data for video-based face classification. Simulation results indicate that when the MOPSO strategy is used to train fuzzy ARTMAP, it produces a significantly lower classification error than when trained using standard hyper-parameter settings. Furthermore, the non-dominated MOPSO solutions represent a better compromise between error and resource allocation than mono-objective PSO-based strategies that minimizes only classification error. Overall, results obtained with the MOPSO strategy reveal the importance of optimizing parameters and network for each problem, where both error and resources are minimized during fitness evaluation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207