MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991311469 · doi:10.1109/smc.2019.8914496

Discrete Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm for Dynamic Constraint Satisfaction with Minimal Perturbation

2019· article· en· W2991311469 on OpenAlexaff
Mahdi Bidar, Malek Mouhoub

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint satisfaction problemMathematical optimizationComputer scienceConstraint satisfactionParticle swarm optimizationAlgorithmConstraint logic programmingLocal consistencyScheduling (production processes)Constraint programmingMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs) provide an appropriate framework to formulate many real-world applications including scheduling, planning and resource allocation. However, the CSP description can change due to the evolving environment. The latter points to the fact that constraints might be subject to change over time and this can affect the feasibility of the solutions found so far. These changes can be captured with the Dynamic CSP (DCSP) formalism that has been proposed and investigated in the literature. More formally, a DCSP can be seen as a series of static CSPs, each resulting from a restriction or a relaxation of some constraints in the previous CSP constraint set. This paper focuses on constraint restriction (constraint addition) and the goal is to obtain the most similar solution to the previous one that satisfies the old and new constraints. In this regard, we propose a new method based on the Particle Swarm Optimization algorithm to solve these DCSPs with minimal perturbation. To evaluate the efficiency of the proposed method, we conducted extensive experiments on randomly generated DCSP instances generated by the model RB. The results achieved clearly demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed algorithm over other known exact and approximation techniques used in the literature for solving these problems.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207