Managing Diversity and Many Objectives in Evolutionary Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new approach to evolving a diversity of high-quality solutions for problems having many objectives is presented. Mouret and Clune's MAP-Elites algorithm has been proposed as a way to evolve an assortment of diverse solutions to a problem. We extend MAP-Elites in a number of ways. We introduce into MAP-elites the many-objective strategy called sum-of-ranks, which enables problems with many objectives (4 and more) to be considered in the MAP. We also enhance MAP-Elites by extending it with multiple solutions per cell (the original MAP-Elites saves only a single solution per cell). Different ways of selecting cell members for reproduction are also considered. We test the new MAP-Elites strategies on the evolutionary art application of image generation. Using procedural textures, genetic programming is used with upwards of 15 light-weight image features to guide fitness. The goal is to evolve images that share image features with a given target image. Our experiments show that the new MAP-Elites algorithms produce a large number of diverse solutions, which can be competitive in quality to those from standard GP runs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".