MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390751793 · doi:10.1145/3637065

Evolutionary Optimization with a Simplified Helper Task for High-Dimensional Expensive Multiobjective Problems

2024· article· en· W4390751793 on OpenAlexaff
Xunfeng Wu, Qiuzhen Lin, Junwei Zhou, Songbai Liu, Carlos A. Coello Coello, Victor C. M. Leung

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Evolutionary Learning and Optimization · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersGuangdong Provincial Pearl River Talents ProgramNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)Human multitaskingTask (project management)Surrogate modelComputer scienceCurse of dimensionalityDimension (graph theory)Evolutionary algorithmDimensionality reductionArtificial intelligenceMachine learningConvergence (economics)Mathematical optimizationOptimization problemAlgorithmMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, surrogate-assisted evolutionary algorithms (SAEAs) have been sufficiently studied for tackling computationally expensive multiobjective optimization problems (EMOPs), as they can quickly estimate the qualities of solutions by using surrogate models to substitute for expensive evaluations. However, most existing SAEAs only show promising performance for solving EMOPs with no more than 10 dimensions, and become less efficient for tackling EMOPs with higher dimensionality. Thus, this article proposes a new SAEA with a simplified helper task for tackling high-dimensional EMOPs. In each generation, one simplified task will be generated artificially by using random dimension reduction on the target task (i.e., the target EMOPs). Then, two surrogate models are trained for the helper task and the target task, respectively. Based on the trained surrogate models, evolutionary multitasking optimization is run to solve these two tasks so that the experiences of solving the helper task can be transferred to speed up the convergence of tackling the target task. Moreover, an effective model management strategy is designed to select new promising samples for training the surrogate models. When compared to five competitive SAEAs on four well-known benchmark suites, the experiments validate the advantages of the proposed algorithm on most test cases.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Evolutionary Learning and OptimizationSame topicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207