Many-objective Optimization via Voting for Elites (2307.02661v1)
Abstract: Real-world problems are often comprised of many objectives and require solutions that carefully trade-off between them. Current approaches to many-objective optimization often require challenging assumptions, like knowledge of the importance/difficulty of objectives in a weighted-sum single-objective paradigm, or enormous populations to overcome the curse of dimensionality in multi-objective Pareto optimization. Combining elements from Many-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms and Quality Diversity algorithms like MAP-Elites, we propose Many-objective Optimization via Voting for Elites (MOVE). MOVE maintains a map of elites that perform well on different subsets of the objective functions. On a 14-objective image-neuroevolution problem, we demonstrate that MOVE is viable with a population of as few as 50 elites and outperforms a naive single-objective baseline. We find that the algorithm's performance relies on solutions jumping across bins (for a parent to produce a child that is elite for a different subset of objectives). We suggest that this type of goal-switching is an implicit method to automatic identification of stepping stones or curriculum learning. We comment on the similarities and differences between MOVE and MAP-Elites, hoping to provide insight to aid in the understanding of that approach $\unicode{x2013}$ and suggest future work that may inform this approach's use for many-objective problems in general.
- Shelvin Chand and Markus Wagner. 2015. Evolutionary many-objective optimization: A quick-start guide. Surveys in Operations Research and Management Science 20, 2 (2015), 35–42.
- Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems. Vol. 5. Springer.
- Antoine Cully and Yiannis Demiris. 2017. Quality and diversity optimization: A unifying modular framework. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 22, 2 (2017), 245–259.
- Kalyanmoy Deb. 2011. Multi-objective optimisation using evolutionary algorithms: an introduction. Springer.
- A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation 6, 2 (2002), 182–197.
- On finding pareto-optimal solutions through dimensionality reduction for certain large-dimensional multi-objective optimization problems. Kangal report 2005011 (2005), 1–19.
- Stephanie Forrest and Melanie Mitchell. 1993. Relative building-block fitness and the building-block hypothesis. In Foundations of genetic algorithms. Vol. 2. Elsevier, 109–126.
- Are quality diversity algorithms better at generating stepping stones than objective-based search?. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion. 115–116.
- Faustino Gomez and Risto Miikkulainen. 1997. Incremental evolution of complex general behavior. Adaptive Behavior 5, 3-4 (1997), 317–342.
- Effectiveness of scalability improvement attempts on the performance of NSGA-II for many-objective problems. In Proceedings of the 10th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation. 649–656.
- PyTorch Image Quality: Metrics for Image Quality Assessment. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2208.14818
- Joel Lehman and Ken Stanley. 2011a. Abandoning objectives: Evolution through the search for novelty alone. Evolutionary computation 19, 2 (2011), 189–223.
- Joel Lehman and Kenneth O Stanley. 2011b. Evolving a diversity of virtual creatures through novelty search and local competition. In Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation. 211–218.
- Exploiting open-endedness to solve problems through the search for novelty.. In ALIFE. 329–336.
- Jean-Baptiste Mouret and Jeff Clune. 2015. Illuminating search spaces by mapping elites. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.04909 (2015).
- Innovation engines: Automated creativity and improved stochastic optimization via deep learning. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. 959–966.
- A region division based diversity maintaining approach for many-objective optimization. Integrated Computer-Aided Engineering 24, 3 (2017), 279–296.
- Multi-objective quality diversity optimization. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference. 139–147.
- Quality diversity: A new frontier for evolutionary computation. Frontiers in Robotics and AI (2016), 40.
- Confronting the challenge of quality diversity. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. 967–974.
- Pareto partial dominance MOEA and hybrid archiving strategy included CDAS in many-objective optimization. In IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE, 1–8.
- Picbreeder: evolving pictures collaboratively online. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1759–1768.
- Zbigniew Skolicki and Kenneth De Jong. 2005. The influence of migration sizes and intervals on island models. In Proceedings of the 7th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation. 1295–1302.
- L Soros and Kenneth Stanley. 2014. Identifying necessary conditions for open-ended evolution through the artificial life world of chromaria. In ALIFE 14: The Fourteenth International Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems. MIT Press, 793–800.
- Kenneth O Stanley. 2007. Compositional pattern producing networks: A novel abstraction of development. Genetic programming and evolvable machines 8, 2 (2007), 131–162.
- How the strictness of the minimal criterion impacts open-ended evolution. In Artificial Life Conference Proceedings. MIT Press, 208–215.
- Open-endedness: The last grand challenge you’ve never heard of. While open-endedness could be a force for discovering intelligence, it could also be a component of AI itself (2017).
- Brian G Woolley and Kenneth O Stanley. 2011. On the deleterious effects of a priori objectives on evolution and representation. In Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation. 957–964.
- SPEA2: Improving the strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm. TIK-report 103 (2001).