| Literature DB >> 35865495 |
Abstract
In today's globalization, cultural and traditional education in primary and secondary schools has become the core of a country's future development, and how to improve the educational effect of cultural and traditional education in primary and secondary schools and find the development direction of cultural and traditional education has become the top priority. In response to this problem, this study proposes a MOPSO-CD-DNN hybrid prediction model, which introduces an optimization algorithm to optimize the parameters of the deep learning model. In this study, multiple benchmark models and evaluation methods are used for comparative research. The results show that the MOPSO-CD-DNN model has significant advantages in both prediction accuracy and prediction stability. Compared with other models, the prediction accuracy G value (average) is improved by 4.66%, 7.43%, and 9.25%, and the standard deviation (G value) is decreased by 0.001, 0.0502, and 0.0413, indicating its effectiveness and applicability to cultural tradition education. In addition, the introduction of the multiobjective optimization algorithm significantly improves the generalization ability of the model, and the prediction effect is significantly better than the single-objective optimization algorithm.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35865495 PMCID: PMC9296323 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3973763
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Traditional BP neural network and deep neural network structure diagram.
Comparison of the classification results of each model.
| Model | TPR/% | TNR/% | TR/% |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPNN | 57.81 | 57.50 | 57.69 |
| SVM | 65.79 | 56.06 | 59.61 |
| DNN | 60.00 | 59.09 | 59.62 |
| DE-DNN | 64.15 | 60.78 | 62.50 |
| SA-DNN | 66.67 | 62.26 | 64.42 |
| NSGA-II-DNN | 68.85 | 72.09 | 70.19 |
| MOPSO-CD-DNN | 72.88 | 75.56 | 74.04 |
Paired-sample t-test for prediction accuracy of each model.
| Model | MOPSO-CD-DNN | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| TPR/% | TNR/% | TR/% | |
| NSGA-II-DNN | 4.926 | 3.336 | 7.202 |
| SA-DNN | 12.341 | 8.214 | 20.396 |
| DE-DNN | 13.046 | 8.647 | 17.393 |
| DNN | 9.168 | 8.810 | 10.525 |
| SVM | 6.182 | 33.698 | 18.779 |
| BPNN | 23.877 | 24.342 | 32.163 |
Note. means p < 0.1, means p < 0.05, means p < 0.01.
F test of prediction accuracy of each model.
| Compare models | TPR/% | TNR/% | TR/% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MOPSO-CD-DNN | NSGA-II-DNN |
|
|
|
| SA-DNN | ||||
| DE-DNN | ||||
| DNN | ||||
| SVM | ||||
| BPNN |
Note. means p < 0.1, means p < 0.05, means p < 0.01.
Figure 2Comparison of the prediction results of the four types of models under different sample proportions. (a) F value, (b) G value.
Sensitivity analysis results of MOPSO-CD algorithm.
| Parameter | Parameter value | TPR/% | TNR/% | TR/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of particle swarms | 50 | 67.92 | 64.71 | 66.35 |
| 100 | 72.88 | 75.56 | 74.04 | |
| 150 | 68.97 | 69.57 | 69.23 | |
| 200 | 74.47 | 66.67 | 70.19 | |
| 250 | 68.42 | 68.09 | 68.27 | |
| 300 | 68.25 | 73.17 | 70.19 | |
|
| ||||
| Number of iterations | 58 | 73.91 | 65.52 | 69.23 |
| 15 | 72.88 | 75.56 | 74.04 | |
| 23 | 66.18 | 75.00 | 69.23 | |
| 35 | 65.28 | 78.13 | 69.23 | |
| 50 | 69.23 | 65.38 | 67.31 | |
| 130 | 68.52 | 66.00 | 67.31 | |
|
| ||||
| File size | 160 | 71.11 | 62.71 | 66.35 |
| 190 | 71.69 | 68.63 | 70.19 | |
| 220 | 70.83 | 64.29 | 67.31 | |
| 250 | 67.24 | 67.39 | 67.31 | |
| 280 | 72.88 | 75.56 | 74.04 | |
| 50 | 68.42 | 68.09 | 68.27 | |