MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029701887 · doi:10.1145/3387168.3387205

Solving Dynamic Multi-Objective Optimization Problems Using Cultural Algorithm based on Decomposition

2019· article· en· W3029701887 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

VenueProceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Vision, Image and Signal Processing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)Mathematical optimizationDecompositionMulti-objective optimizationOptimization problemComputer sciencePopulationAlgorithmLocal optimumMathematicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of dynamic multi-objective optimization problems (DMOPs) is on the rise, in complex systems. DMOPs have several objective functions and constraints that vary over time to be considered simultaneously. As a result, the Pareto optimal solutions (POS) and Pareto front (PF) will also vary with time. The desired algorithm should not only locate the optima but also track the moving optima efficiently. In this paper, we propose a new Cultural Algorithm (CA) based on decomposition (CA/D). The primary objective of the CA/D algorithm is to decompose DMOP into several scalar optimization subproblems and solve simultaneously. The subproblems are optimized utilizing the information shared only by its neighboring problems. The proposed CA/D is evaluated using CEC 2015 optimization benchmark functions. The results show that CA/D outperforms CA, Multi-population CA (MPCA), and MPCA incorporating game strategies (MPCA-GS), particularly in hybrid and composite benchmark 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.

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 score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

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 communication0.0010.003
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.292 · 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