Exploring Long-term Memory in Evolutionary Multi-objective Algorithms: A Case Study with NSGA-III
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the field of many-objective optimization, obtaining a dense solution set is a challenging task, mostly due to having hyper-surface nature of Pareto-front; which cannot be covered by commonly utilized population sizes. This is particularly vital in scenarios where innovization and informed decision-making are crucial. The challenge stems from the constraints imposed by population size limitations in evolutionary algorithms, which impede the efficient exploration of multiple solutions. A contributing factor to this issue is the lack of long-term memory in the well-known evolutionary algorithms to retain these solutions. On the contrary, the effective training of machine learning-assisted optimization or innovization relies on a substantial amount of data, which can be provided by preserving these valuable solutions. Moreover, long-term memory can play a significant role in expensive many-objective optimization, where the repetition of the optimization process is both costly and time-consuming, similar to training deep neural networks. The study focuses on NSGA-III equipped with long-term memory and assessing its performance across 16 benchmark problems, encompassing DTLZ1 to DTLZ7 and WFG1 to WFG9, considering scenarios with 3, 5, and 10 objectives. This paper explores the benefits of incorporating long-term memory in terms of the ultimate optimization outcomes, including the number of non-dominated solutions, knee points, and Inverted Generational Distance (IGD).
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".