Objective Comparison and Selection in Mono- and Multi-Objective Evolutionary Neurocontrollers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Often in multi-objective problems, several elemental objectives are combined into compound objectives by using auxiliary equations to reduce these problems to just one or two objectives. Reducing the number of objectives simplifies the problem into a more easily optimized mono-objective problem, or for multi-objective problems, reduces the Pareto front to a few dimensions for easy analysis. Here, multi-objective evolutionary neurocontrollers with both compound and elemental objectives are compared to a mono-objective evolutionary neurocontroller. The goal of this research is to compare the effectiveness of individual elemental and compound objective effectiveness, and not directly compare mono- and multi-objectivity. The effectiveness of each of the objectives is determined through a series of experiments using a previously demonstrated Lamarckian-inherited neuromodulated evolutionary neurocontroller. The evolved neurocontrollers operate a simulated vehicle pursuing a basic evader vehicle in the pursuit-evasion game. Both vehicles are subject to the effects of mass and drag. It is shown that under certain circumstances, binary objectives can be unsuitable choices as objectives, and that it can be more effective to use multi-objective solutions than to combine elemental objective problems into mono-objective problems by auxiliary functions. It is also shown that the obvious choice of objective may not be the most effective choice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".