A Framework for Optimal Service Selection in QoS-Aware Web Service Composition using Elephant Herding Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
—Web service composition combines available services to provide new functionality. Given the number of available services with similar functionalities and different non functional aspects (QoS), the problem of finding a QoS-optimal web service composition is considered as an optimization problem belonging to NP-hard class. Thus, an optimal solution cannot be found by exact algorithms within a reasonable time. In this paper, a meta-heuristic bio-inspired is presented to address the QoS aware web service composition; it is based on Elephant Herding Optimization (EHO) algorithm, which is inspired by the herding behavior of elephant group. EHO is characterized by a process of dividing and combining the population to sub populations (clan); this process allows the exchange of information between local searches to move toward a global optimum. However, with Applying others evolutionary algorithms the problem of early stagnancy in a local optimum cannot be avoided. Compared with PSO, the results of experimental evaluation show that our proposition significantly outperforms the existing algorithm with better performance of the fitness value and a fast convergence
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".