MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143083947 · doi:10.5267/j.ijiec.2013.09.007

A multi-objective improved teaching-learning based optimization algorithm for unconstrained and constrained optimization problems

2013· article· en· W2143083947 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical optimizationOptimization algorithmComputer scienceAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present work proposes a multi-objective improved teaching-learning based optimization (MO-ITLBO) algorithm for unconstrained and constrained multi-objective function optimization. The MO-ITLBO algorithm is the improved version of basic teaching-learning based optimization (TLBO) algorithm adapted for multi-objective problems. The basic TLBO algorithm is improved to enhance its exploration and exploitation capacities by introducing the concept of number of teachers, adaptive teaching factor, tutorial training and self-motivated learning. The MO-ITLBO algorithm uses a grid-based approach to adaptively assess the non-dominated solutions (i.e. Pareto front) maintained in an external archive. The performance of the MO-ITLBO algorithm is assessed by implementing it on unconstrained and constrained test problems proposed for the Congress on Evolutionary Computation 2009 (CEC 2009) competition. The performance assessment is done by using the inverted generational distance (IGD) measure. The IGD measures obtained by using the MO-ITLBO algorithm are compared with the IGD measures of the other state-of-the-art algorithms available in the literature. Finally, Lexicographic ordering is used to assess the overall performance of competitive algorithms. Results have shown that the proposed MO-ITLBO algorithm has obtained the 1st rank in the optimization of unconstrained test functions and the 3rd rank in the optimization of constrained test functions.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.241 · 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