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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
R. Venkata Rao, Vivek Patel

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.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
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

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

Citations51
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering ComputationsSame topicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207