BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Gongjin Lan

Gongjin Lan contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial IntelligenceNeural and Evolutionary ComputingSoftware Engineering

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A Semantic Web Technology Index

Semantic Web (SW) technology has been widely applied to many domains such as medicine, health care, finance, geology. At present, researchers mainly rely on their experience and preferences to develop and evaluate the work of SW technology. Although the general architecture (e.g., Tim Berners-Lee's Semantic Web Layer Cake) of SW technology was proposed many years ago and has been well-known, it still lacks a concrete guideline for standardizing the development of SW technology. In this paper, we propose an SW technology index to standardize the development for ensuring that the work of SW technology is designed well and to quantitatively evaluate the quality of the work in SW technology. This index consists of 10 criteria that quantify the quality as a score of 0 ~ 10. We address each criterion in detail for a clear explanation from three aspects: 1) what is the criterion? 2) why do we consider this criterion and 3) how do the current studies meet this criterion? Finally, we present the validation of this index by providing some examples of how to apply the index to the validation cases. We conclude that the index is a useful standard to guide and evaluate the work in SW technology.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Learning Directed Locomotion in Modular Robots with Evolvable Morphologies

We generalize the well-studied problem of gait learning in modular robots in two dimensions. Firstly, we address locomotion in a given target direction that goes beyond learning a typical undirected gait. Secondly, rather than studying one fixed robot morphology we consider a test suite of different modular robots. This study is based on our interest in evolutionary robot systems where both morphologies and controllers evolve. In such a system, newborn robots have to learn to control their own body that is a random combination of the bodies of the parents. We apply and compare two learning algorithms, Bayesian optimization and HyperNEAT. The results of the experiments in simulation show that both methods successfully learn good controllers, but Bayesian optimization is more effective and efficient. We validate the best learned controllers by constructing three robots from the test suite in the real world and observe their fitness and actual trajectories. The obtained results indicate a reality gap that depends on the controllers and the shape of the robots, but overall the trajectories are adequate and follow the target directions successfully.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Time Efficiency in Optimization with a Bayesian-Evolutionary Algorithm

Not all generate-and-test search algorithms are created equal. Bayesian Optimization (BO) invests a lot of computation time to generate the candidate solution that best balances the predicted value and the uncertainty given all previous data, taking increasingly more time as the number of evaluations performed grows. Evolutionary Algorithms (EA) on the other hand rely on search heuristics that typically do not depend on all previous data and can be done in constant time. Both the BO and EA community typically assess their performance as a function of the number of evaluations. However, this is unfair once we start to compare the efficiency of these classes of algorithms, as the overhead times to generate candidate solutions are significantly different. We suggest to measure the efficiency of generate-and-test search algorithms as the expected gain in the objective value per unit of computation time spent. We observe that the preference of an algorithm to be used can change after a number of function evaluations. We therefore propose a new algorithm, a combination of Bayesian optimization and an Evolutionary Algorithm, BEA for short, that starts with BO, then transfers knowledge to an EA, and subsequently runs the EA. We compare the BEA with BO and the EA. The results show that BEA outperforms both BO and the EA in terms of time efficiency, and ultimately leads to better performance on well-known benchmark objective functions with many local optima. Moreover, we test the three algorithms on nine test cases of robot learning problems and here again we find that BEA outperforms the other algorithms.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access