MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991539177 · doi:10.1109/smc42975.2020.9283242

Swarm Based Algorithms for Neural Network Training

2020· article· en· W2991539177 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverfittingFirefly algorithmComputer scienceArtificial neural networkAnt colony optimization algorithmsAlgorithmParticle swarm optimizationSwarm behaviourArtificial intelligenceMachine learningOptimization algorithmSwarm intelligenceMathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to compare the abilities and deficiencies of various swarm based algorithms for training artificial neural networks. This paper uses seven algorithms, seven regression problems, sixteen classification problems, and four bounded activation functions to compare algorithms in regards to loss, accuracy, hidden unit saturation, and overfitting. It was found that particle swarm optimization is the top algorithm for regression problems based on loss, firefly algorithm was the top algorithm for classification problems when examining accuracy and loss. The ant colony optimization and artificial bee colony algorithms caused the least amount of hidden unit saturation, with the bacterial foraging optimization algorithm producing the least amount of overfitting.

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)0.000
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.177 · 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