<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Falls are a multifactorial cause of injuries for older people. Subjects with osteoporosis are more vulnerable to falls. The focus of this study is to investigate the performance of the different machine learning models built on spatiotemporal gait parameters to predict falls particularly in subjects with osteoporosis. Spatiotemporal gait parameters and prospective registration of falls were obtained from a sample of 110 community dwelling older women with osteoporosis (age 74.3 ± 6.3) and 143 without osteoporosis (age 68.7 ± 6.8). We built four different models, Support Vector Machines, Neuronal Networks, Decision Trees, and Dynamic Bayesian Networks (DBN), for each specific set of parameters used, and compared them considering their accuracy, precision, recall and F-score to predict fall risk. The F-score value shows that DBN based models are more efficient to predict fall risk, and the best result obtained is when we use a DBN model using the experts’ variables with FSMC’s variables, mixed variables set, obtaining an accuracy of 80%, and recall of 73%. The results confirm the feasibility of computational methods to complement experts’ knowledge to predict risk of falling within a period of time as high as 12 months.</abstract>

Higher Technological Institute of the East of State of Hidalgo

National Institute of Astrophysics, Optics and Electronics

Comparison of Machine Learning Models to Predict Risk of Falling in Osteoporosis Elderly

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Methods for solving non-linear control systems are still being developed. For many industrial devices and systems, quick and accurate regulators are investigated and required. The most effective and promising for nonlinear systems control is a State-Dependent Riccati Equation method (SDRE). In SDRE, the problem consists of finding the suboptimal solution for a given objective function considering nonlinear constraints. For this purpose, SDRE methods need improvement.In this paper, various numerical methods for solving the SDRE problem, i.e. algebraic Riccati equation, are discussed and tested. The time of computation and computational effort is presented and compared considering selected nonlinear control plants.</abstract>

Numerical Solution of SDRE Control Problem – Comparison of the Selected Methods

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Designing an efficient optimization method which also has a simple structure is generally required by users for its applications to a wide range of practical problems. In this research, an enhanced differential evolution algorithm with adaptation of switching crossover strategy (DEASC) is proposed as a general-purpose population-based optimization method for continuous optimization problems. DEASC extends the solving ability of a basic differential evolution algorithm (DE) whose performance significantly depends on user selection of the control parameters: scaling factor, crossover rate and population size. Like the original DE, the proposed method is aimed at e ciency, simplicity and robustness. The appropriate population size is selected to work in accordance with good choices of the scaling factors. Then, the switching crossover strategy of using low or high crossover rates are incorporated and adapted to suit the problem being solved. In this manner, the adaptation strategy is just a convenient add-on mechanism. To verify the performance of DEASC, it is tested on several benchmark problems of various types and di culties, and compared with some well-known methods in the literature. It is also applied to solve some practical systems of nonlinear equations. Despite its much simpler algorithmic structure, the experimental results show that DEASC greatly enhances the basic DE. It is able to solve all the test problems with fast convergence speed and overall outperforms the compared methods which have more complicated structures. In addition, DEASC also shows promising results on high dimensional test functions.</abstract>

An enhanced differential evolution algorithm with adaptation of switching crossover strategy for continuous optimization

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">A problem of reducing interval uncertainty is considered by an approach of cutting off equal parts from the left and right. The interval contains admissible values of an observed object’s parameter. The object’s parameter cannot be measured directly or deductively computed, so it is estimated by expert judgments. Terms of observations are short, and the object’s statistical data are poor. Thus an algorithm of flexibly reducing interval uncertainty is designed via adjusting the parameter by expert procedures and allowing to control cutting off. While the parameter is adjusted forward, the interval becomes progressively narrowed after every next expert procedure. The narrowing is performed via division-by-<italic>q</italic> dichotomization cutting off the <italic>q</italic>−1-th parts from the left and right. If the current parameter’s value falls outside of the interval, forward adjustment is canceled. Then backward adjustment is executed, where one of the endpoints is moved backwards. Adjustment is not executed when the current parameter’s value enclosed within the interval is simultaneously too close to both left and right endpoints. If the value is “trapped” like that for a definite number of times in succession, the early stop fires.</abstract>

Division-by-<italic>q</italic> dichotomization for interval uncertainty reduction by cutting off equal parts from the left and right based on expert judgments under short-termed observations

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 49 (2024): Issue 1 (February 2024)

Volume 48 (2023): Issue 4 (December 2023)

Volume 48 (2023): Issue 3 (September 2023)

Volume 48 (2023): Issue 2 (June 2023)

Volume 48 (2023): Issue 1 (March 2023)

Volume 47 (2022): Issue 4 (December 2022) Special issue: “Recent advances on supply chain network design”

Volume 47 (2022): Issue 3 (September 2022)

Volume 47 (2022): Issue 2 (June 2022)

Volume 47 (2022): Issue 1 (February 2022)

Volume 46 (2021): Issue 4 (December 2021)

Volume 46 (2021): Issue 3 (September 2021)

Volume 46 (2021): Issue 2 (June 2021)

Volume 46 (2021): Issue 1 (March 2021)

Volume 45 (2020): Issue 4 (December 2020)

Volume 45 (2020): Issue 3 (September 2020)

Volume 45 (2020): Issue 2 (June 2020)

Volume 45 (2020): Issue 1 (March 2020)

Volume 44 (2019): Issue 4 (December 2019)

Volume 44 (2019): Issue 3 (September 2019)

Volume 44 (2019): Issue 2 (June 2019)

Volume 44 (2019): Issue 1 (March 2019)

Volume 43 (2018): Issue 4 (December 2018)

Volume 43 (2018): Issue 3 (September 2018)

Volume 43 (2018): Issue 2 (June 2018)

Volume 43 (2018): Issue 1 (March 2018)

Volume 42 (2017): Issue 4 (December 2017)

Volume 42 (2017): Issue 3 (September 2017)

Volume 42 (2017): Issue 2 (June 2017)

Volume 42 (2017): Issue 1 (February 2017)

Volume 41 (2016): Issue 4 (November 2016)

Volume 41 (2016): Issue 3 (September 2016)

Volume 41 (2016): Issue 2 (June 2016)

Volume 41 (2016): Issue 1 (March 2016)

Volume 40 (2015): Issue 4 (December 2015)

Volume 40 (2015): Issue 3 (September 2015)

Volume 40 (2015): Issue 2 (June 2015)

Volume 40 (2015): Issue 1 (March 2015)

Volume 39 (2014): Issue 4 (December 2014)

Volume 39 (2014): Issue 3 (July 2014)

Volume 39 (2014): Issue 2 (June 2014)

Volume 39 (2014): Issue 1 (February 2014)

Volume 38 (2013): Issue 4 (December 2013)

Volume 38 (2013): Issue 3 (September 2013)

Volume 38 (2013): Issue 2 (June 2013)

Volume 38 (2013): Issue 1 (March 2013)

Volume 37 (2012): Issue 4 (December 2012)

Volume 37 (2012): Issue 3 (October 2012)

Volume 37 (2012): Issue 2 (June 2012)

Volume 37 (2012): Issue 1 (March 2012)

Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences

ISSN: 0867-6356 (print version)  Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences (until 1990 Foundations of Control Engineering) is a quarterly peer-reviewed international journal published since 1975. One of its main aims is its focus on the links between Computing (understood in the sense defined in the report of the ACM Task Force on the Core of Computer Science chaired by Peter J. Denning: Computing as a Discipline, CACM, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1989) and broadly understood Decision Sciences.  Scope of topics  The journal provides a forum for exchange of ideas for researchers in the fields of computing and decision sciences. The scope of the journal covers various areas of computing and decision sciences, particularly:    approximate reasoning,  artificial intelligence,  combinatorial optimization,  computational complexity theory,  databases and data warehouses,  intelligent decision support,  knowledge engineering,  machine learning and data mining,  metaheuristics,  multiple criteria decision analysis,  networking and distributed systems,  parallel computing and concurrency,  production and project scheduling,  scheduling theory,  soft and granular computing,  software engineering.     Why submit   International editorial board composed of distinguished scholars highly representative of the field of computing and decision sciences,  Quick turnaround,  Comprehensive peer review with at least two highly competent referees assessing each manuscript,  Promotion of published papers in the vast scientific community of researchers working in the field.   Rejection Rate   ca. 60%   Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.  Plagiarism policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process (iThenticate, https://www.ithenticate.com/ ). 

Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences

Volume 45 (2020): Issue 2 (June 2020)

Comparison of Machine Learning Models to Predict Risk of Falling in Osteoporosis Elderly

Numerical Solution of SDRE Control Problem – Comparison of the Selected Methods

An enhanced differential evolution algorithm with adaptation of switching crossover strategy for continuous optimization

Division-by-q dichotomization for interval uncertainty reduction by cutting off equal parts from the left and right based on expert judgments under short-termed observations

Search

All Volumes and Issues in this Journal