Hyperparameter optimization ResNet by improved Beluga Whale Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The parameter values of neural networks will directly affect the performance of the network, so it is very important to choose the appropriate parameter tuning method to improve the performance of the neural network. In this paper, the improved beluga whale optimization hyperparameter optimization ResNet model is used to construct a new model, EBWO-ResNet. Firstly, in order to solve the problem that the initial population of the original beluga whale optimization is not rich enough, the Tent chaotic map is introduced into the beluga whale optimization, and a new algorithm EBWO is constructed. Secondly, in order to solve the problems of low accuracy and difficult parameter tuning of ResNet, the EBWO algorithm was integrated into ResNet to construct a new model EBWO-ResNet. Finally, in order to verify the effectiveness of the EBWO algorithm, the EBWO algorithm was applied to three engineering problems and compared with other five swarm intelligent algorithms, and in order to verify the effectiveness of the EBWO-ResNet model, EBWO-ResNet was applied to maize disease identification,in order to improve the accuracy of corn identification and ensure corn yield,and the other seven models were compared based on three evaluation indexes. The experimental results show that the EBWO algorithm provides the best solutions in the three engineering problems, and the EBWO-ResNet has the best performance in identifying maize diseases, with an accuracy of 96.3%,which is 0.2-1.5 percentage points higher than that of other models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".