A Pairwise Surrogate Model using GNN for Evolutionary Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimization problems widely arise in various science and engineering fields and can be computationally expensive in many real-world applications. Evaluation of the fitness function to assess a candidate solution is the main operation in all optimization procedures which can be heavily compute-intensive. Machine learning-based surrogate models can contribute to learning the specific pattern among the decision variables and objective values to consequently reduce the computation time of fitness evaluation. In this study, we have proposed a novel pairwise surrogate model to identify the superiority between candidate solutions in a pairwise comparison despite the fact that most of the surrogate models try to predict the exact fitness value. The proposed idea can significantly help the optimizer to reach better results in a shorter period of time. It seems comparing two candidate solutions for a greedy selection is much easier than approximating fitness values for both. We demonstrated Graph Neural Network (GNN) for this purpose to be trained on a limited number of pairwise ranks and then utilized to compare a pair of candidate solutions. In order to examine the efficacy of our model, we utilized different well-known single-objective optimization benchmarks in dimensions 10,20, and 30. Moreover, the results of the learning-based evaluation are compared with the results from the real fitness evaluation. The results, assessed in terms of the number of fitness calls and the best-found solution, showed that the proposed method is able to decrease the computing cost of fitness evaluation significantly while we achieve a comparable solution. Our model can be tested with any optimization algorithm which employs a comparison-based mechanism among its candidate solutions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".