MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evolutionary Perspectives on Neural Network Generations: A Critical Examination of Models and Design Strategies

2024· article· en· W4394818527 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

VenueCurrent Computer Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEvolutionary Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkComputer scienceCognitive scienceManagement scienceArtificial intelligencePsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

: In the last few years, Neural Networks have become more common in different areas due to their ability to learn intricate patterns and provide precise predictions. Nonetheless, creating an efficient neural network model is a difficult task that demands careful thought of multiple factors, such as architecture, optimization method, and regularization technique. This paper aims to comprehensively overview the state-of-the-art artificial neural network (ANN) generation and highlight key challenges and opportunities in machine learning applications. It provides a critical analysis of current neural network model design methodologies, focusing on the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches. Also, it explores the use of different deep neural networks (DNN) in image recognition, natural language processing, and time series analysis. In addition, the text explores the advantages of selecting optimal values for various components of an Artificial Neural Network (ANN). These components include the number of input/output layers, the number of hidden layers, the type of activation function used, the number of epochs, and the model type selection. Setting these components to their ideal values can help enhance the model's overall performance and generalization. Furthermore, it identifies some common pitfalls and limitations of existing design methodologies, such as overfitting, lack of interpretability, and computational complexity. Finally, it proposes some directions for future research, such as developing more efficient and interpretable neural network architectures, improving the scalability of training algorithms, and exploring the potential of new paradigms, such as Spiking Neural Networks, quantum neural networks, and neuromorphic computing.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.260 · 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