ArticlePloS one2024
Solving the maximum cut problem using Harris Hawk Optimization algorithm.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of the max-cut problem is to cut any graph in such a way that the total weight of the edges that are cut off is maximum in both subsets of vertices that are divided due to the cut of the edges. Although it is an elementary graph partitioning problem, it is one of the most challenging combinatorial optimization-based problems, and tons of application areas make this problem highly admissible. Due to its admissibility, the problem is solved using the Harris Hawk Optimization algorithm (HHO). Though HHO effectively solved some engineering optimization problems, is sensitive to parameter settings and may converge slowly, potentially getting trapped in local optima. Thus, HHO and some additional operators are used to solve the max-cut problem. Crossover and refinement operators are used to modify the fitness of the hawk in such a way that they can provide precise results. A mutation mechanism along with an adjustment operator has improvised the outcome obtained from the updated hawk. To accept the potential result, the acceptance criterion has been used, and then the repair operator is applied in the proposed approach. The proposed system provided comparatively better outcomes on the G-set dataset than other state-of-the-art algorithms. It obtained 533 cuts more than the discrete cuckoo search algorithm in 9 instances, 1036 cuts more than PSO-EDA in 14 instances, and 1021 cuts more than TSHEA in 9 instances. But for four instances, the cuts are lower than PSO-EDA and TSHEA. Besides, the statistical significance has also been tested using the Wilcoxon signed rank test to provide proof of the superior performance of the proposed method. In terms of solution quality, MC-HHO can produce outcomes that are quite competitive when compared to other related state-of-the-art algorithms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.