MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400078663 · doi:10.1109/tevc.2024.3419892

Dynamic Multiobjective Optimization Algorithm Guided by Recurrent Neural Network

2024· article· en· W4400078663 on OpenAlexaff
Yaru Hu, Ponnuthurai Nagaratnam Suganthan, Witold Pedrycz, Rui Wang, Jinhua Zheng, Juan Zou, Yanjie Song

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Technology and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersFoundation Research Project of Jiangsu ProvinceNatural Science Foundation of Hunan ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial neural networkAlgorithmOptimization algorithmRecurrent neural networkArtificial intelligenceMathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, prediction-based algorithms have attracted much attention for solving dynamic multiobjective optimization (DMO) problems in the evolutionary computing community. However, this class of algorithms still has potential for further improvements by enhancing the historical information extraction approach to balance convergence and diversity. In this article, we propose a DMO algorithm based on a recurrent neural network (RNN) to balance the population’s convergence and diversity in dynamic environments. The RNN model in the proposed algorithm employs online learning in order to constantly improve according to the increasing evolutionary information. Meanwhile, differing from most existing prediction-based algorithms, the learning machine is not limited by assumptions, such as linear or nonlinear correlation, when it predicts new solutions for future evolutionary environments. Besides, an auxiliary strategy is performed, which adaptively introduces the random or mutated solutions according to the error losses between the prediction solutions and the optimal solutions in the whole optimization process. The experimental results show that the proposed algorithm is more effective for handling DMO problems than several recent algorithms.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
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

Citations22
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Evolutionary ComputationSame topicIndustrial Technology and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207