Search alternatives:
process optimization » model optimization (Expand Search)
same process » damage process (Expand Search), simple process (Expand Search), phase process (Expand Search)
linear same » linear time (Expand Search), linear svm (Expand Search), linear rate (Expand Search)
process optimization » model optimization (Expand Search)
same process » damage process (Expand Search), simple process (Expand Search), phase process (Expand Search)
linear same » linear time (Expand Search), linear svm (Expand Search), linear rate (Expand Search)
-
1
-
2
-
3
Running time comparison of different algorithms.
Published 2024“…Simulation results show that PSAR provides 51.28%, 28.60%, 21.75%, and 16.80% performance improvement over the existing TSRFCM, DDQ, OSA, and DPSM algorithms in terms of end-to-end delay reduction, and 33.32%, 18.94%, 67.42%, and 60.61% performance optimization in terms of reconfiguration cost reduction.…”
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
Table_1_Integrated Evolutionary Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Joint Learning of Features and Hyperparameters for Optimized, Explainable Machine Learning.DOCX
Published 2022“…IEL may be applied to a wide range of less- or unconstrained discovery science problems where the practitioner wishes to jointly learn features and hyperparameters in an adaptive, principled manner within the same algorithmic process. This approach offers significant flexibility, enlarges the solution space and mitigates bias that may arise from manual or semi-manual hyperparameter tuning and feature selection and presents the opportunity to select the inner machine learning algorithm based on the results of optimized learning for the problem at hand.…”
-
9
Table_2_Integrated Evolutionary Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Joint Learning of Features and Hyperparameters for Optimized, Explainable Machine Learning.DOCX
Published 2022“…IEL may be applied to a wide range of less- or unconstrained discovery science problems where the practitioner wishes to jointly learn features and hyperparameters in an adaptive, principled manner within the same algorithmic process. This approach offers significant flexibility, enlarges the solution space and mitigates bias that may arise from manual or semi-manual hyperparameter tuning and feature selection and presents the opportunity to select the inner machine learning algorithm based on the results of optimized learning for the problem at hand.…”
-
10
-
11
-
12
Notations table.
Published 2024“…Simulation results show that PSAR provides 51.28%, 28.60%, 21.75%, and 16.80% performance improvement over the existing TSRFCM, DDQ, OSA, and DPSM algorithms in terms of end-to-end delay reduction, and 33.32%, 18.94%, 67.42%, and 60.61% performance optimization in terms of reconfiguration cost reduction.…”
-
13
Comparison of average traffic throughput.
Published 2024“…Simulation results show that PSAR provides 51.28%, 28.60%, 21.75%, and 16.80% performance improvement over the existing TSRFCM, DDQ, OSA, and DPSM algorithms in terms of end-to-end delay reduction, and 33.32%, 18.94%, 67.42%, and 60.61% performance optimization in terms of reconfiguration cost reduction.…”
-
14
VNF sharing example in Multi SFC.
Published 2024“…Simulation results show that PSAR provides 51.28%, 28.60%, 21.75%, and 16.80% performance improvement over the existing TSRFCM, DDQ, OSA, and DPSM algorithms in terms of end-to-end delay reduction, and 33.32%, 18.94%, 67.42%, and 60.61% performance optimization in terms of reconfiguration cost reduction.…”
-
15
SFC reconfiguration scenario.
Published 2024“…Simulation results show that PSAR provides 51.28%, 28.60%, 21.75%, and 16.80% performance improvement over the existing TSRFCM, DDQ, OSA, and DPSM algorithms in terms of end-to-end delay reduction, and 33.32%, 18.94%, 67.42%, and 60.61% performance optimization in terms of reconfiguration cost reduction.…”
-
16
Loss function and accuracy during training.
Published 2024“…Simulation results show that PSAR provides 51.28%, 28.60%, 21.75%, and 16.80% performance improvement over the existing TSRFCM, DDQ, OSA, and DPSM algorithms in terms of end-to-end delay reduction, and 33.32%, 18.94%, 67.42%, and 60.61% performance optimization in terms of reconfiguration cost reduction.…”
-
17
Comparison of reconfiguration times.
Published 2024“…Simulation results show that PSAR provides 51.28%, 28.60%, 21.75%, and 16.80% performance improvement over the existing TSRFCM, DDQ, OSA, and DPSM algorithms in terms of end-to-end delay reduction, and 33.32%, 18.94%, 67.42%, and 60.61% performance optimization in terms of reconfiguration cost reduction.…”
-
18
Notations table.
Published 2024“…Simulation results show that PSAR provides 51.28%, 28.60%, 21.75%, and 16.80% performance improvement over the existing TSRFCM, DDQ, OSA, and DPSM algorithms in terms of end-to-end delay reduction, and 33.32%, 18.94%, 67.42%, and 60.61% performance optimization in terms of reconfiguration cost reduction.…”
-
19
Table1_v1_Optimal Maintenance for Degrading Assets in the Context of Asset Fleets-A Case Study.XLSX
Published 2020“…The paper demonstrates the benefits of optimal (long-term) schedules for maintenance, but indicate at the same time the need for efficient algorithms in the context of large asset fleets, in contrast to common industrial case studies that are rather small-scale.…”
-
20