Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 66 references

Constrained Hybrid Metaheuristic Algorithm for Probabilistic Neural Networks Learning

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The constrained Hybrid Metaheuristic (cHM), which probes five optimizers and commits to the best one, outperforms each single method in PNN training across 16 datasets.

desk verdict The cHM probe-then-fit idea is reasonable, but the evaluation is circular: Eq. (10) trains on the test set, so the reported accuracy gains are not evidence of generalization. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15661 v1 pith:XD2XZ6DR submitted 2025-01-26 cs.NE cs.AI

Piotr A. Kowalski , Szymon Kucharczyk , Jacek Mańdziuk This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NEcs.AI MSC 68T0790C59
keywords ProbabilisticNeuralNetworkslearningproceduremetaheuristichybridsynergysmoothingparametersclassification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Probabilistic neural networks classify by estimating density functions, and their accuracy depends on smoothing parameters that gradient-based training handles poorly. This paper tries to show that a constrained Hybrid Metaheuristic (cHM) can train those parameters better than any of its five component optimizers alone. cHM runs a short probing phase across PSO, BAT, BFO, SA, and FPA, selects the one with the lowest error rate, then lets that optimizer refine the network under a fixed evaluation budget. Across 16 datasets the hybrid ranks first far more often than single methods on average test accuracy, precision, and recall, and it also beats a classical plug-in bandwidth rule on six of the sixteen datasets. If the comparison holds, hybrid selection is a cheap way to get strong PNN performance without knowing in advance which optimizer suits a dataset.

What carries the argument

The central object is the constrained Hybrid Metaheuristic (cHM) procedure: a two-phase wrapper around a portfolio of five population-based optimizers, PSO, BAT, BFO, SA, and FPA, used to tune the smoothing-parameter vector $h_{III}$ of a PNN built with a product Cauchy kernel. The two phases are probing and fitting, each capped by a maximum number of fitness evaluations ($\mathrm{maxFE_{probing}}$, $\mathrm{maxFE_{fit}}$). Probing runs every weak optimizer on an equal budget and keeps the population of the lowest-error-rate method; fitting continues that method alone; the best population is carried into the next cHM iteration. The fitness function is the error rate of Eq. (10), so the mechanism is an adaptive selection-and-concentration strategy over smoothing parameters.

What would settle it

Re-run the cHM protocol with the error-rate fitness computed on a validation split disjoint from the test split, keeping every other setting identical; if cHM no longer accumulates the highest rank on average test accuracy across the 16 datasets, the result depends on using test labels during training.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that combining several population-based metaheuristics into one constrained, two-phase procedure makes PNN training more reliable than any single metaheuristic. In the probing phase cHM gives each of five weak optimizers the same population and the same number of function evaluations, then selects the one with the lowest error rate; in the fitting phase that optimizer continues with the saved population until a second evaluation budget is exhausted. The cycle repeats five times, passing the best population forward. Reported average test accuracy gives cHM a rank of 10 wins across the 16 datasets, versus 3 for the next-best single method, with similar rankings for precision and recall; in the best-accuracy comparison cHM wins 6 datasets against the plug-in method's 5. The paper reads this as evidence that cHM effectively selects and exploits the right optimizer for each dataset and each stage of training.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that the error-rate score used to pick the best optimizer is computed on data that were not used to measure the final accuracy; the paper never states that a separate validation set was used, so the reported rankings could be circular if the same test labels guided both selection and reporting.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A user no longer needs to know in advance which optimizer suits a dataset: cHM's probing phase selects among PSO, BAT, BFO, SA, and FPA under a fixed evaluation budget.
  • Because one cHM run tests all component methods during probing, it gives roughly an N-fold speedup over running the N single metaheuristics separately, assuming equal per-evaluation costs.
  • The population of the chosen optimizer is carried into the next cycle, and later cycles can switch to a different optimizer, so the method adapts its search strategy as training proceeds.
  • Since the rank advantage appears for average test accuracy, precision, and recall alike, the improvement is not specific to one evaluation metric.
  • The same wrapper can be applied to other PNN smoothing-parameter schemes, such as per-class, per-feature, or matrix forms, without changing the probe-and-fit loop.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A fair-minded next test would compare cHM against an oracle that, after all runs, picks the best single metaheuristic per dataset; the gap would quantify the cost of online selection and whether probing adds value beyond chance.
  • The probe-then-fit wrapper is not PNN-specific: it could be transplanted to any kernel density estimation task where a bandwidth parameter must be chosen without gradients, such as anomaly detection or density-based clustering.
  • Sweeping the probing-to-fitting budget ratio would show how much exploration is needed before committing to an optimizer and could turn cHM into a budget-aware anytime algorithm; the authors list this ratio as future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the constrained Hybrid Metaheuristic (cHM) algorithm for training Probabilistic Neural Networks (PNNs) by optimizing smoothing parameters. cHM runs a portfolio of five metaheuristics (PSO, BAT, BFO, SA, FPA) in a two-phase procedure: a probing phase evaluates each method on a fixed computational budget and selects the one with the lowest error rate, and a fitting phase continues with the selected method. The procedure is repeated for a fixed number of iterations or until zero error. The authors evaluate cHM on 16 benchmark datasets, comparing average test accuracy, precision, and recall against the five individual metaheuristics and a plug-in baseline. They report that cHM achieves the highest rank on all three metrics and claim that it 'overperforms' single metaheuristics in PNN training.

Significance. If the empirical claims were valid, the paper would make a modest but useful contribution by showing that a simple portfolio-based selection strategy can improve PNN training without gradient-based optimization. The algorithm is clearly described and the evaluation covers a diverse set of datasets. However, the central empirical claim is currently unsupported because the fitness function in Eq. (10) is defined on the test sample and the paper never introduces a validation set. This makes the reported test accuracies the same objective used for model selection and early stopping, i.e., the comparison is partly circular. In addition, the absence of standard deviations or significance tests makes the rank-based superiority claim difficult to assess. The contribution can only be evaluated after a corrected experimental protocol is applied.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eq. (10); Section 3.1; Algorithm 1] The error-rate fitness function in Eq. (10) is defined as 1 minus the number of correct predictions on the 'test sample', and Section 3.1 states that maxFEprobing/fit counts evaluations of each test sample of each individual. Algorithm 1 also stops when 'the error rate is equal to 0 on the test set'. The dataset split in Section 4.1 is described only as train and test sets; no validation set is mentioned. Therefore, the test accuracies reported in Tables 9-11 are computed on data that were used to select the metaheuristic and to tune the smoothing parameters. This makes the central comparison circular and the conclusion that cHM generalizes better unsupported. The authors must either show that the 'test sample' in Eq. (10) was a separate validation set (e.g., obtained by a three-way split or cross-validation) or redo the experiments with a proper validation set and report metrics on a truly held-out test set.
  2. [Tables 9-11 and Section 4.1] The tables present averages over 10 runs without any measure of dispersion (e.g., standard deviation, confidence intervals) or statistical significance tests. Since the compared methods are stochastic metaheuristics, the observed differences (e.g., cHM accuracy 0.954 vs BAT 0.947 on Cancer) may be within run-to-run variability. The statement that 'a fixed random seed was applied to all stochastic operations' also needs clarification: if the same seed was used for all 10 repetitions, the runs are not independent and the averages are meaningless. Please report the seed policy and provide variance information or significance tests to support the rank-based claims.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.3.1] The 'Rank' definition counts the number of datasets in which a method is among the best (ties counted for each method). This is not a standard rank and the total across methods exceeds the number of datasets; please rename or clarify the metric.
  2. [Conclusions] The claim that 'cHM is roughly N times faster than testing each of the N metaheuristics separately' is not supported by the budget: the probing phase runs all N methods, so the total evaluation count is N*maxFEprobing + maxFEfit, not (maxFEprobing+maxFEfit)/N. Please provide a precise computational-complexity statement.
  3. [Section 3.2] Typo: 'Simmulated Annealing' should be 'Simulated Annealing'.
  4. [Section 4.2 and Table 7] In the data description, 'Vecivle' should be 'Vehicle', and the E. coli class-balance column in Table 7 is incomplete ('143/77/52/35/20/').
  5. [Figures 1-4] The dot plots in Figures 2 and 4 would benefit from explicit axis labels and a legend explaining the dot sizes; the captions mention that the size indicates the count, but this is not visible in the text.
  6. [References] Some references are incomplete (e.g., [16] 'Vaswani, et al.' has no initials or journal) and some are generic AI papers not cited for a specific claim; a careful reference check is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Reported test accuracies are not independent of the optimization: Eq. (10) defines the fitness on the test sample, Algorithm 1 optimizes that same error rate, and Tables 9-11 report test accuracy as its complement.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1 (Algorithm 1, fitness budget and convergence condition) and Section 4.3.1 (Tables 9-11); Eq. (10)]
    "Here, we used an error rate function, defined as follows: error rate= 1− number of correct predictions / cardinality of test sample . (10) ... maxF Eprobing/f it counts a single evaluation of each test sample of each individual as a separate evaluation. ... These two phases are repeated n-times or until the process converges, i.e., the error rate is equal to 0 on the test set."

    Eq. (10) defines the cHM fitness as the error rate on the 'test sample'. Section 3.1 states that the probing/fitting evaluation budget is consumed by evaluating test samples, and that convergence means error rate 0 on the test set. Section 4.1 describes only a train/test split (20% test) and says these sets are used to calculate test metrics; no separate validation set is introduced. Tables 9-11 then report average test accuracy, which is exactly 1 minus the same error rate on the same test split. Therefore the reported test accuracy is the very quantity that cHM's probing and fitting phases were minimizing; the rank advantage in Table 9 (cHM 10 vs next-best 3) is partly forced by construction and does not measure generalization to unseen data.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that cHM overperforms single metaheuristics in PNN training, supported by the rank advantage in Tables 9-11 for average test accuracy, precision, and recall. The load-bearing evaluation is contaminated: the fitness function in Eq. (10) is defined on the 'test sample', Algorithm 1 stops when the error rate is 0 on the test set, and Section 4.1 only splits data into train and test sets without creating a validation set. Consequently, the test accuracies reported in Tables 9-11 are not independent estimates of generalization; they are the complement of the optimized objective. This is a specific, quotable reduction rather than a vague concern. The paper also contains self-citations, but they are not load-bearing for the central algorithmic claim, so no separate circularity step is raised for them. Apart from the test-set fitness issue, the method description and comparisons are self-contained. The score reflects that the central empirical claim partially reduces to its own optimization target, while acknowledging that the method still has independent algorithmic content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is empirical, so the ledger captures the hand-set algorithmic choices and domain assumptions that constrain the comparison. No new physical or theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • cHM iteration count n = 5
    Number of probe/fit cycles chosen by the authors; affects how often metaheuristics are re-selected.
  • population size np = 20
    Number of candidate solutions for each metaheuristic; chosen by hand.
  • phase budget split = maxFEprobing = np*nt*30, maxFEfit = np*nt*100
    The ratio of probing to fitting effort; hand-chosen and not tuned, it shapes which metaheuristic wins.
  • initial and search bounds for smoothing parameters = initial [0,10]; search [0,10000]
    Arbitrary ranges that constrain all solutions.
  • per-metaheuristic hyperparameters = Tables 2-6 values
    BAT, BFO, FPA, PSO, SA parameters taken from cited papers; not tuned for these datasets.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Kernel density estimates with the Cauchy kernel and product form are adequate for the classification tasks.
    Section 2.1, Eq. (3); the paper cites prior work for the kernel choice and assumes a 4% quality difference, but does not validate it on these datasets.
  • domain assumption The per-feature smoothing parameter vector hIII is sufficient to represent good PNN solutions.
    Section 2.2, Eq. (7); the paper cites [26,52] and does not compare with hI, hII, or HIV.
  • domain assumption The vanilla implementations of PSO, BAT, BFO, SA, and FPA behave as described in their cited sources.
    Section 3.2; the paper states it uses vanilla formulations without providing implementation code, so the comparison depends on faithful reimplementation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constrained Hybrid Metaheuristic Algorithm for Probabilistic Neural Networks Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XD2XZ6DR

@misc{pith2026250115661,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constrained Hybrid Metaheuristic Algorithm for Probabilistic Neural Networks Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XD2XZ6DR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15661}
}
read the original abstract

This study investigates the potential of hybrid metaheuristic algorithms to enhance the training of Probabilistic Neural Networks (PNNs) by leveraging the complementary strengths of multiple optimisation strategies. Traditional learning methods, such as gradient-based approaches, often struggle to optimise high-dimensional and uncertain environments, while single-method metaheuristics may fail to exploit the solution space fully. To address these challenges, we propose the constrained Hybrid Metaheuristic (cHM) algorithm, a novel approach that combines multiple population-based optimisation techniques into a unified framework. The proposed procedure operates in two phases: an initial probing phase evaluates multiple metaheuristics to identify the best-performing one based on the error rate, followed by a fitting phase where the selected metaheuristic refines the PNN to achieve optimal smoothing parameters. This iterative process ensures efficient exploration and convergence, enhancing the network's generalisation and classification accuracy. cHM integrates several popular metaheuristics, such as BAT, Simulated Annealing, Flower Pollination Algorithm, Bacterial Foraging Optimization, and Particle Swarm Optimisation as internal optimisers. To evaluate cHM performance, experiments were conducted on 16 datasets with varying characteristics, including binary and multiclass classification tasks, balanced and imbalanced class distributions, and diverse feature dimensions. The results demonstrate that cHM effectively combines the strengths of individual metaheuristics, leading to faster convergence and more robust learning. By optimising the smoothing parameters of PNNs, the proposed method enhances classification performance across diverse datasets, proving its application flexibility and efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15661 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Bar plot of single metaheuristic selection by the cHM algorithm for the Cancer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dot plot of single metaheuristic selection by the cHM algorithm for the Cancer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Bar plot of single metaheuristic selection by the cHM algorithm for the Vehicle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dot plot of single metaheuristic selection by the cHM algorithm for the Vehicle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Le Monde, Nobel prize in physics celebrates pioneers of artificial intelli- gence, Le MondeAccessed: 2025-01-13 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Kasinidou, S

    M. Kasinidou, S. Kleanthous, J. Otterbacher, Artificial intelligence in everyday life: Educating the public through an open, distance-learning course, in: Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Tech- nology in Computer Science Education V. 1, 2023, pp. 306–312

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    J. Yin, K. Y. Ngiam, H. H. Teo, Role of artificial intelligence applica- tions in real-life clinical practice: systematic review, Journal of medical Internet research 23 (4) (2021) e25759

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Hamdan, A

    A. Hamdan, A. E. Hassanien, R. Khamis, B. Alareeni, A. Razzaque, B. Awwad, Applications of artificial intelligence in business, education and healthcare, Springer, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Bajwa, U

    J. Bajwa, U. Munir, A. Nori, B. Williams, Artificial intelligence in healthcare: transforming the practice of medicine, Future healthcare journal 8 (2) (2021) e188–e194

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    X. Li, A. Sigov, L. Ratkin, L. A. Ivanov, L. Li, Artificial intelligence ap- plications in finance: a survey, Journal of Management Analytics 10 (4) (2023) 676–692. 27

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    D. B. Olawade, O. Z. Wada, A. O. Ige, B. I. Egbewole, A. Olojo, B. I. Oladapo, Artificial intelligence in environmental monitoring: Advance- ments, challenges, and future directions, Hygiene and Environmental Health Advances (2024) 100114

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Karwowski, J

    J. Karwowski, J. Mańdziuk, A Monte Carlo Tree Search approach to finding efficient patrolling schemes on graphs, European Journal of Op- erational Research 277 (1) (2019) 255–268.doi:https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ejor.2019.02.017

    work page 2019

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Karwowski, J

    J. Karwowski, J. Mańdziuk, A. Żychowski, F. Grajek, B. An, A memetic approach for sequential security games on a plane with moving targets, Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 33 (01) (2019) 970–977. doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.3301970

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    F. Fang, P. Stone, M. Tambe, When security games go green: design- ing defender strategies to prevent poaching and illegal fishing, in: Pro- ceedings of the 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI’15, 2015, p. 2589–2595

    2015

  3. [11]

    Żychowski, J

    A. Żychowski, J. Mańdziuk, E. Bondi, A. Venugopal, M. Tambe, B. Ravindran, Evolutionary approach to security games with signal- ing, in: Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Confer- ence on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-22, International Joint Conferences on Ar...

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Gillies, P

    A. Gillies, P. Smith, Can ai systems meet the ethical requirements of professional decision-making in health care?, AI and Ethics 2 (1) (2022) 41–47

    2022

  5. [13]

    C.-J. Wu, R. Raghavendra, U. Gupta, B. Acun, N. Ardalani, K. Maeng, G. Chang, F. Aga, J. Huang, C. Bai, et al., Sustainable ai: Environmen- tal implications, challenges and opportunities, Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems 4 (2022) 795–813

    2022

  6. [14]

    LeCun, Y

    Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, G. Hinton, Deep learning, Nature 521 (7553) (2015) 436–444

    2015

  7. [15]

    Krizhevsky, I

    A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, G. E. Hinton, ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks, 2012. 28

    2012

  8. [16]

    Vaswani, et al., Attention is all you need, Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems 30 (2017)

    A. Vaswani, et al., Attention is all you need, Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Esteva, et al., Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks, Nature 542 (7639) (2017) 115–118

    A. Esteva, et al., Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks, Nature 542 (7639) (2017) 115–118

    2017

  10. [18]

    Z. C. Lipton, The mythos of model interpretability: In machine learning, the concept of interpretability is both important and slippery., Queue 16 (3) (2018) 31–57

    2018

  11. [19]

    Amodei, et al., Concrete problems in ai safety, arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565 (2016)

    D. Amodei, et al., Concrete problems in ai safety, arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Goodfellow, Y

    I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, A. Courville, Deep learning (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Pollard, Convergence of stochastic processes, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    D. Pollard, Convergence of stochastic processes, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    Y. He, H. Li, Probability density forecasting of wind power using quantile regression neural network and kernel density estimation, En- ergy Conversion and Management 164 (2018) 374–384. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.03.010

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    M. Kusy, R. Zajdel, Application of reinforcement learning algorithms for the adaptive computation of the smoothing parameter for probabilistic neural network, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 9 (26) (2015) 2163–2175

    2015

  16. [24]

    B. W. Silverman, Density estimation for statistics and data analysis, Routledge, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    M. P. Wand, M. C. Jones, et al., Multivariate plug-in bandwidth selec- tion, Computational Statistics 9 (2) (1994) 97–116

    1994

  18. [26]

    P. A. Kowalski, M. Kusy, S. Kubasiak, S. Łukasik, Probabilistic neural network-parameters adjustment in classification task, in: 2020 Interna- tional Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–8

    2020

  19. [27]

    Mugdadi, I

    A. Mugdadi, I. A. Ahmad, A bandwidth selection for kernel density estimation of functions of random variables, Computational Statistics & 29 Data Analysis 47 (1) (2004) 49–62. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.csda.2003.10.013

    2004

  20. [28]

    Kaveh, M

    M. Kaveh, M. S. Mesgari, Application of meta-heuristic algorithms for training neural networks and deep learning architectures: A comprehen- sive review, Neural Processing Letters 55 (4) (2023) 4519–4622

    2023

  21. [29]

    P. A. Kowalski, S. Łukasik, Training neural networks with krill herd algorithm, Neural Processing Letters 44 (2016) 5–17

    2016

  22. [30]

    Okulewicz, M

    M. Okulewicz, M. Zaborski, J. Mańdziuk, Self-adapting particle swarm optimization for continuous black box optimization, Applied Soft Com- puting 131 (2022) 109722. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc. 2022.109722

    2022

  23. [31]

    Zaborski, M

    M. Zaborski, M. Woźniak, J. Mańdziuk, Multidimensional red fox meta- heuristic for complex optimization, Applied Soft Computing 131 (2022) 109774. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109774

    2022

  24. [32]

    Abd Elaziz, A

    M. Abd Elaziz, A. Dahou, L. Abualigah, L. Yu, M. Alshinwan, A. M. Khasawneh, S. Lu, Advanced metaheuristic optimization techniques in applications of deep neural networks: a review, Neural Computing and Applications (2021) 1–21

    2021

  25. [33]

    C. A. ul Hassan, M. S. Khan, R. Irfan, J. Iqbal, S. Hussain, S. Sajid Ul- lah, R. Alroobaea, F. Umar, Optimizing deep learning model for soft- ware cost estimation using hybrid meta-heuristic algorithmic approach, Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 2022 (1) (2022) 3145956

    2022

  26. [34]

    Hosseini, A

    E. Hosseini, A. M. Al-Ghaili, D. H. Kadir, S. S. Gunasekaran, A. N. Ahmed, N. Jamil, M. Deveci, R. A. Razali, Meta-heuristics and deep learning for energy applications: Review and open research challenges (2018–2023), Energy Strategy Reviews 53 (2024) 101409

    2024

  27. [35]

    Chiroma, A

    H. Chiroma, A. Y. Gital, N. Rana, S. M. Abdulhamid, A. N. Muham- mad, A. Y. Umar, A. I. Abubakar, Nature inspired meta-heuristic al- gorithms for deep learning: recent progress and novel perspective, in: Advances in Computer Vision: Proceedings of the 2019 Computer Vi- sion Co...

    2019

  28. [36]

    D. F. Specht, Probabilistic neural networks and the polynomial adaline as complementary techniques for classification, Neural Networks, IEEE Transactions on 1 (1) (1990) 111–121.doi:10.1109/72.80210

    1990 doi

  29. [37]

    D. F. Specht, Probabilistic neural networks, Neural Networks 3 (1) (1990) 109–118

    1990

  30. [38]

    Mantzaris, G

    D. Mantzaris, G. Anastassopoulos, A. Adamopoulos, Genetic algorithm pruning of probabilistic neural networks in medical disease estimation, Neural Networks 24 (8) (2011) 831–835

    2011

  31. [39]

    X.-B. Wen, H. Zhang, X.-Q. Xu, J.-J. Quan, A new watermarking ap- proach based on probabilistic neural network in wavelet domain, Soft Computing 13 (4) (2009) 355–360

    2009

  32. [40]

    A. Wu, S. Nowozin, E. Meeds, R. E. Turner, J. M. Hernandez-Lobato, A. L. Gaunt, Deterministic variational inference for robust bayesian neu- ral networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.03958 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    D. Feng, A. Harakeh, S. L. Waslander, K. Dietmayer, A review and com- parative study on probabilistic object detection in autonomous driving, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 23 (8) (2021) 9961–9980

    2021

  34. [42]

    M. J. Anbari, M. Tabesh, A. Roozbahani, Risk assessment model to pri- oritize sewer pipes inspection in wastewater collection networks, Journal of environmental management 190 (2017) 91–101

    2017

  35. [43]

    M. Faes, D. Moens, Recent trends in the modeling and quantification of non-probabilistic uncertainty, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 27 (2020) 633–671

    2020

  36. [44]

    Varuna Shree, T

    N. Varuna Shree, T. Kumar, Identification and classification of brain tumor mri images with feature extraction using dwt and probabilistic neural network, Brain informatics 5 (1) (2018) 23–30

    2018

  37. [45]

    Y. Sun, J. Chen, C. Yuen, S. Rahardja, Indoor sound source localiza- tion with probabilistic neural network, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 65 (8) (2017) 6403–6413. 31

    2017

  38. [46]

    Woźniak, D

    M. Woźniak, D. Połap, G. Capizzi, G. L. Sciuto, L. Kośmider, K. Frankiewicz, Small lung nodules detection based on local variance analysis and probabilistic neural network, Computer methods and pro- grams in biomedicine 161 (2018) 173–180

    2018

  39. [47]

    Q. T. Ain, M. Ali, A. Riaz, A. Noureen, M. Kamran, B. Hayat, A. Rehman, Sentiment analysis using deep learning techniques: a re- view, International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Appli- cations 8 (6) (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    P. A. Kowalski, P. Kulczycki, Interval probabilistic neural network, Neu- ral Computing and Applications 28 (2017) 817–834

    2017

  41. [49]

    Rutkowska, P

    D. Rutkowska, P. Duda, J. Cao, M. Jaworski, M. Kisiel-Dorohinicki, D. Tao, L. Rutkowski, Probabilistic neural networks for incremental learning over time-varying streaming data with application to air pollu- tion monitoring, Applied Soft Computing 161 (2024) 111702

    2024

  42. [50]

    P. A. Kowalski, M. Kusy, Determining significance of input neurons for probabilistic neural network by sensitivity analy- sis procedure, Computational Intelligence 34 (3) (2018) 895–

    2018

  43. [51]

    P. A. Kowalski, M. Kusy, Sensitivity analysis for probabilistic neural network structure reduction, IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems 29 (5) (2017) 1919–1932

    2017

  44. [52]

    P. A. Kowalski, M. Walczak, Feature selection for regression tasks base on explainable artificial intelligence procedures, in: 2023 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–8

    2023

  45. [53]

    G. Wu, R. Mallipeddi, P. Suganthan, Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the cec 2017 competition and special session on constrained single objective real-parameter optimization (10 2016)

    2017

  46. [54]

    P. A. Kowalski, K. Wadas, Triggering probabilistic neural networks with flowerpollinationalgorithm, ComputationalIntelligenceandMathemat- ics for Tackling Complex Problems (2019). 32

    2019

  47. [55]

    Kennedy, R

    J. Kennedy, R. Eberhart, Particle swarm optimization, in: Proceedings of ICNN’95 - International Conference on Neural Networks, Vol. 4, 1995, pp. 1942–1948 vol.4.doi:10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968

    1995

  48. [56]

    Yang, A new metaheuristic bat-inspired algorithm 284 (04 2010)

    X.-S. Yang, A new metaheuristic bat-inspired algorithm 284 (04 2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12538-6-6

    2010 doi

  49. [57]

    K. V. Naik S.M., Jagannath R.P.K., Bat algorithm-based weighted laplacian probabilistic neural network, Neural Comput & Applic 32 (2020) 1157–1171

    2020

  50. [58]

    Passino, Biomimicry of bacterial foraging for distributed optimiza- tion and control

    K. Passino, Biomimicry of bacterial foraging for distributed optimiza- tion and control. ieee control systems magazine 22(3), 52-67, Control Systems, IEEE 22 (2002) 52 – 67.doi:10.1109/MCS.2002.1004010

    2002 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Kirkpatrick, C

    S. Kirkpatrick, C. Gelatt, M. Vecchi, Optimization by simulated an- nealing, Science (New York, N.Y.) 220 (1983) 671–80.doi:10.1126/ science.220.4598.671

    1983

  52. [60]

    Yang, Flower pollination algorithm for global optimization, in: J

    X.-S. Yang, Flower pollination algorithm for global optimization, in: J. Durand-Lose, N. Jonoska (Eds.), Unconventional Computation and Natural Computation, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 240–249

    2012

  53. [61]

    Innocente, J

    M. Innocente, J. Sienz, Constraint-handling techniques for particle swarm optimization algorithms (01 2021).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2101. 10933

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O.Grisel, M.Blondel, P.Prettenhofer, R.Weiss, V.Dubourg, J.Vander- plas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, E. Duchesnay, Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python, Journal of Machine Learning Researc...

    2011

  55. [63]

    D. Dua, C. Graff, UCI machine learning repository (2017). URL http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml

    2017

  56. [64]

    Kan, Ghouls, goblins, and ghosts

    W. Kan, Ghouls, goblins, and ghosts... boo! (2016). URL https://kaggle.com/competitions/ghouls-goblins-and\ -ghosts-boo 33

    2016

  57. [65]

    J. D. Romano, T. T. Le, W. La Cava, J. T. Gregg, D. J. Goldberg, P. Chakraborty, N. L. Ray, D. Himmelstein, W. Fu, J. H. Moore, Pmlb v1.0: an open source dataset collection for benchmarking machine learn- ing methods, arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.00058v2 (2021). 34

    2021 arXiv

  58. [916]

    arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ coin.12149, doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/coin.12149

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.