Search alternatives:
algorithm both » algorithm blood (Expand Search), algorithm b (Expand Search), algorithm etc (Expand Search)
both function » body function (Expand Search), growth function (Expand Search), beach function (Expand Search)
algorithm pre » algorithm where (Expand Search), algorithm used (Expand Search), algorithm from (Expand Search)
pre function » spread function (Expand Search), sphere function (Expand Search), three function (Expand Search)
algorithm both » algorithm blood (Expand Search), algorithm b (Expand Search), algorithm etc (Expand Search)
both function » body function (Expand Search), growth function (Expand Search), beach function (Expand Search)
algorithm pre » algorithm where (Expand Search), algorithm used (Expand Search), algorithm from (Expand Search)
pre function » spread function (Expand Search), sphere function (Expand Search), three function (Expand Search)
-
1
Prediction performance of different optimization algorithms.
Published 2021“…<p>(A) 3 algorithms were compared in terms of the residuals of the cost function of the optimized TF on 7 mice datasets (Derivative free algorithm failed in optimizing a TF in a mouse). …”
-
2
Comparison of deconvolution and optimization algorithms on a batch of data.
Published 2021“…Output is given by the vascular response, measured as the change in speed of red blood cells flowing inside a capillary proximal to the recorded neuronal activation (in yellow, right panel). Both experimental data have been resampled at 50ms and used to compute a set of TFs (in orange) either with direct deconvolution approaches (Fourier or Toeplitz methods, middle-upper panel TFs) or with 1-Γ function optimization performed by 3 different algorithms (middle-lower panel TFs). …”
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
Average function evaluation times of the three optimization algorithms.
Published 2025“…<p>Average function evaluation times of the three optimization algorithms.…”
-
8
-
9
As for Fig 2, we present failure rates as a function of the cohort size (vertical axis) versus the number of distractors (horizontal axis), for the Smyth and McClave baseline algorithm from [76].
Published 2020“…<p>We explore the behaviour of the baseline algorithm both in terms of whether it can recover maximally diverse cohorts (upper four panels), and whether it can recover imbalanced cohorts. …”
-
10
-
11
-
12
-
13
-
14
-
15
-
16
Continuous Probability Distributions generated by the PIPE Algorithm
Published 2022“…<div><p>Abstract We investigate the use of the Probabilistic Incremental Programming Evolution (PIPE) algorithm as a tool to construct continuous cumulative distribution functions to model given data sets. …”
-
17
Efficient Algorithms for GPU Accelerated Evaluation of the DFT Exchange-Correlation Functional
Published 2025“…Kohn–Sham density functional theory (KS-DFT) has become a cornerstone for studying the electronic structure of molecules and materials. …”
-
18
The pseudocode for the NAFPSO algorithm.
Published 2025“…The experimental results show that compared with the traditional particle swarm optimization algorithm, NACFPSO performs well in both convergence speed and scheduling time, with an average convergence speed of 81.17 iterations and an average scheduling time of 200.00 minutes; while the average convergence speed of the particle swarm optimization algorithm is 82.17 iterations and an average scheduling time of 207.49 minutes. …”
-
19
PSO algorithm flowchart.
Published 2025“…The experimental results show that compared with the traditional particle swarm optimization algorithm, NACFPSO performs well in both convergence speed and scheduling time, with an average convergence speed of 81.17 iterations and an average scheduling time of 200.00 minutes; while the average convergence speed of the particle swarm optimization algorithm is 82.17 iterations and an average scheduling time of 207.49 minutes. …”
-
20