Maintaining Diversity in The Bounded Pareto-Set
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For more than two decades, stand-alone evolutionary multi-objective optimization (EMO) methods have been adequately demonstrated to find a set of trade-off solutions near Pareto-front for various multi-objective optimization problems. Despite a long-standing existence of classical generative single-objective based methods, a very few EMO studies have combined the two approaches for a better gain. In this paper, we investigate the effect of seeding the initial population of an EMO algorithm with extreme solutions obtained using a single-objective method. Our proposed approach is further aided with an opposition based offspring creation mechanism which strategically places new solutions on the current Pareto frontier by a simple, yet a novel arbitration policy that utilizes the relative distances from the extreme solutions in the current population members. We conduct an extensive simulation of our proposed approach on a wide variety of two and three-objective benchmark MOP test problems. Results are shown to be remarkably better than the original EMO approach in terms of hyper-volume metric. The results are interesting and should motivate EMO researchers to integrate single-objective focused optimization and an opposition-based concept with diversity-preserving EMO procedures for an overall better performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".