MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197491224 · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2021.3105937

Multi-Objective Neural Evolutionary Algorithm for Combinatorial Optimization Problems

2021· article· en· W3197491224 on OpenAlexaff
Yinan Shao, Jerry Chun‐Wei Lin, Gautam Srivastava, Dongdong Guo, Hongchun Zhang, Yi Hu, Alireza Jolfaei

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceKnapsack problemArtificial neural networkEvolutionary algorithmCombinatorial optimizationTravelling salesman problemScalabilityMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceHeuristicsOptimization problemInferenceAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been a recent surge of success in optimizing deep reinforcement learning (DRL) models with neural evolutionary algorithms. This type of method is inspired by biological evolution and uses different genetic operations to evolve neural networks. Previous neural evolutionary algorithms mainly focused on single-objective optimization problems (SOPs). In this article, we present an end-to-end multi-objective neural evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition and dominance (MONEADD) for combinatorial optimization problems. The proposed MONEADD is an end-to-end algorithm that utilizes genetic operations and rewards signals to evolve neural networks for different combinatorial optimization problems without further engineering. To accelerate convergence, a set of nondominated neural networks is maintained based on the notion of dominance and decomposition in each generation. In inference time, the trained model can be directly utilized to solve similar problems efficiently, while the conventional heuristic methods need to learn from scratch for every given test problem. To further enhance the model performance in inference time, three multi-objective search strategies are introduced in this work. Our experimental results clearly show that the proposed MONEADD has a competitive and robust performance on a bi-objective of the classic travel salesman problem (TSP), as well as Knapsack problem up to 200 instances. We also empirically show that the designed MONEADD has good scalability when distributed on multiple graphics processing units (GPUs).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations92
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning SystemsSame topicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207