MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286517447 · doi:10.18280/ria.360309

DDAPSO: Hybrid Discrete Dragonfly Algorithm and Particle Swarm Algorithm to Service Selection and Composition for the Internet of Things Applications

2022· article· en· W4286517447 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bilal Benmessahel, Farid Nouioua

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicService-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlgorithmComputer scienceHeuristicsParticle swarm optimizationSelection (genetic algorithm)Service (business)The InternetTask (project management)Selection algorithmSwarm behaviourMachine learningArtificial intelligenceEngineeringWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, the Internet of Things (IoT) has quickly risen as one of the most essential technologies of this century. IoT allows users to connect to a vast network of smart devices, services, and data. An important and challenging research problem in the Internet of Things applications is how to select an appropriate service selection (SS). In the SS problem, users can combine several services from diverse sources (things or devices) to satisfy their needs. On the other hand, the SS problem is known for its complexity and is categorized as an NP-hard problem; such problems are typically solved utilizing heuristics like bio-inspired algorithms. In this research a new bio-inspired algorithm called DDAPSO is created to solve the SS problem where a new strategy is proposed to maintain a balance between the exploration and exploitation abilities. This hybrid algorithm is the result of coupling a Discrete Dragonfly Algorithm (DDA) with the particle swarm optimization algorithm (PSO). The suggested algorithm was properly tested using a variety of scenarios with different numbers of services and with different numbers of concrete services per each service set or task. The proposed algorithm is compared with the main recent well-known algorithms, i.e. GA, PSO, DDA, ABC and MVO for service selection. In a large-scale setting, the results clearly show that the DDAPSO algorithm outperforms other services selection algorithms reported in the literature in terms of selection optimally as well as execution time.

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)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicService-Oriented Architecture and Web ServicesFrench-language works237,207