MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406458562 · doi:10.1109/tcyb.2024.3524457

Kriging Surrogate Model-Based Constraint Multiobjective Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm

2025· article· en· W4406458562 on OpenAlexaff
Hui Wang, Tie Cai, Witold Pedrycz

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Cybernetics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Applied Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersBasic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceShenzhen Fundamental Research and Discipline Layout project
KeywordsKrigingSurrogate modelParticle swarm optimizationMathematical optimizationConstraint (computer-aided design)Multi-swarm optimizationComputer scienceAlgorithmMetaheuristicMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main challenge when solving constrained multiobjective optimization problems (CMOPs) with intricate constraints and high dimensionality is how to overcome a problem of irregular and variable-shaped objective search regions. Such regions can lead to problems of local optimization and uneven distribution of feasible solutions. To overcome these challenges, an efficacious search method is usually needed to improve the efficiency of searching optimal solution and utilization of data structure used to store nondominated vectors. The originality of this work comes with a creative and novel design of Kriging surrogate model-based simplex crossover operator (KSCO) and Kriging surrogate model-based local search of simplex crossover operator (KLSSCO). KSCO is used to calculate the speed update equation, as well as the coefficients of the equation. KLSSCO is employed to decide which particle is treated as third particle participating in the speed update equation. A constrained multiobjective particle swarm optimization (PSO) based on KSCO and KLSSCO is proposed to solve the CMOP with local optimization and uneven distribution problems, namely KSCO and KLSSCO-based constrained multiobjective PSO algorithm (KCMOPSO). This ensures that the algorithm can search the infeasible and feasible regions of constrained multiobjective problems accurately and accelerate the convergence of the algorithm. The experimental results show that the proposed algorithm is more effective compared with the existing elite method.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.245
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
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

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on CyberneticsSame topicEngineering Applied ResearchFrench-language works237,207