Recently, evolutionary multitasking has been employed to generate a ``set of Pareto sets" (SOS) for machine learning models, addressing diverse task settings across heterogeneous environments. This involves creating a repository of compact, specialized solution models that are collectively tailored to each specific task setting and environment, enabling users to select the most suitable model based on particular specifications and preferences. In this paper, we further demonstrate the versatility and applicability of the SOS concept across diverse domains, focusing on three real-world problems: engineering design problems, inventory management problems, and hyperparameter optimization problems. Additionally, as evolutionary multitasking has proven effective in generating the SOS, we investigate the performance of current evolutionary multitasking methods on these real-world problems. Subsequently, we present visualizations of the generated SOS in both decision and objective spaces, complemented by the development of a measurement to gauge the similarity between different Pareto sets corresponding to diverse tasks. Finally, we show that by systematically examining the shifts in Pareto optimal designs across different task settings though the SOS solutions, users can gain deeper understandings on the dynamic interplay between design solutions and their performance in different settings or contexts.
Figures & tables
Problem
Tasks
F
σ
L
E
Task 1
10
10
200
2.00E+05
EO1
Task 2
8
10
200
1.50E+05
Task 3
8
8
200
1.50E+05
TABLE I: Parameter Settings of the Four Bar Truss Design Problems.
Problem
Tasks
E
σb,max
δmax
Task 1
700000 kg/cm2
700 kg/cm2
1.5 cm
EO2
Task 2
500000 kg/cm2
700 kg/cm2
2 cm
Task 3
500000 kg/cm2
500 kg/cm2
2 cm
TABLE II: Parameter Settings of the Hatch Cover Design Problems.
Problem
Tasks
P
L
E
Task 1
6000 lb
14 in
3.00E+07 psi
EO3
Task 2
4000 lb
14 in
2.00E+07 psi
Task 3
4000 lb
10 in
2.00E+07 psi
TABLE III: Parameter Settings of the Welded Beam Design Problems.
Problem
Tasks
D
σL
r
K
c
Task 1
3412
53.354
0.26
80
27.5
IM1
Task 2
490
5.027
0.3
80
241
Task 3
4736
57.911
0.3
135
29.41
Task 1
4736
57.911
0.3
135
29.41
IM2
Task 2
200
2.969
0.26
80
233
Task 3
215
2.781
0.3
80
435
TABLE IV: Parameter Settings of the Inventory Management Problems.
Problems
MO-MFEA
MO-MFEA-II
EMT-ET
NSGA-II
CHV ± Std Dev
CHV ± Std Dev
CHV ± Std Dev
CHV ± Std Dev
EO1
2.1659 ± 0.0015
2.1679 ± 0.0017
2.1668 ± 0.0015
2.1435 ± 0.0079
EO2
2.3611 ± 0.0010
2.3625 ± 0.0009
2.3617 ± 0.0012
2.3604 ± 0.0016
EO3
2.9521 ± 0.0089
2.9321 ± 0.0238
2.9398 ± 0.0214
2.8870 ± 0.0398
IM1
2.8820 ± 0.0006
2.8826 ± 0.0007
2.8821 ± 0.0012
2.8818 ± 0.0016
IM2
2.8770 ± 0.0009
2.8778 ± 0.0010
2.8771 ± 0.0011
2.8770 ± 0.0012
TABLE V: CHV results of MFEA, MFEA-II, EMT-ET, and NSGA-II averaged over 20 independent runs of every optimizer.
Fig. 1: The SOS shown in the decision space. All of the results are obtained by MO-MFEA. (a) The SOS of EO1. (b) The SOS of EO2. (c) The SOS of EO3. (d) The SOS of IM1. (e) The SOS of IM2. (f) The SOS of IM3. (g) The SOS of HPO.
Fig. 2: The SOS shown in the objective space. All of the results are obtained by MO-MFEA. (a) The SOS of EO1. (b) The SOS of EO2. (c) The SOS of EO3. (d) The SOS of IM1. (e) The SOS of IM2. (f) The SOS of IM3. (g) The SOS of HPO.
EO3
IM1
Task1
Task2
Task3
Task1
Task2
Task3
Task1
0.0000
0.1994
0.2604
Task1
0.0000
0.0899
0.0674
Task2
0.1994
0.0000
0.2017
Task2
0.0899
0.0000
0.0293
Task3
0.2604
0.2017
0.0000
Task3
0.0674
0.0293
0.0000
TABLE VI: The RMMD Matrices of EO3 and IM1
Fig. 3: The first two variables of the Pareto sets under P=6000lb , P=7000lb , and P=8000lb .
Evolutionary multitasking is a recent approach that solves multiple related optimization problems within a single evolutionary run, rather than addressing each problem separately. We consider monotone submodular optimization problems with dynamic knapsack constraints and study a multitasking formulation in which all tasks share a common monotone submodular function f, but differ in their constraints. We focus on the case where elements within each constraint have uniform cost and show that this structure leads to small Pareto fronts in the multitasking formulation. This enables solution sharing across tasks and can improve performance compared to running standard evolutionary approaches independently, depending on the constraint regime. Using rigorous runtime analysis, we analyze the expected time until the proposed multitasking algorithms obtain a (1−1/e)-approximation for each task. Experimental results for the Maximum Coverage problem complement the theoretical analysis and provide further insight into the practical behavior of the approach across different budget settings.
Liam Wigney, Frank Neumann
Optimisation and Logistics School of Computer Science and Information Technology Adelaide University Adelaide, Australia
Pareto optimization via evolutionary multi-objective algorithms has been shown to efficiently solve constrained monotone submodular functions. Traditionally when solving multiple problems, the algorithm is run for each problem separately. We introduce multitasking formulations of these problems that are an effective way to solve multiple related problems with a single run. In our setting the given problems share a monotone submodular function f but have different knapsack constraints. We examine the case where elements within a constraint have the same cost and show that our multitasking formulations result in small Pareto fronts. This allows the population to share solutions between all problems leading to significant improvements compared to running several classical approaches independently. Using rigorous runtime analysis, we analyze the expected time until the introduced multitasking approaches obtain a (1−1/e)-approximation for each of the given problems. Our experimental investigations for the maximum coverage problem give further insight into the dynamics behind how the approach works and doesn't work in practice for problems where elements within a constraint also have varied costs.
Liam Wigney, Frank Neumann
Optimisation and Logistics School of Computer Science and Information Technology Adelaide University Adelaide, Australia
Multi-task optimization is typically characterized by a fixed and finite set of tasks. The present paper relaxes this condition by considering a non-fixed and potentially infinite set of optimization tasks defined in a parameterized, continuous and bounded task space. We refer to this unique problem setting as parametric multi-task optimization (PMTO). Assuming the bounds of the task parameters to be (θl, θu), a novel (θl, θu)-PMTO algorithm is crafted to operate in two complementary modes. In an offline optimization mode, a joint search over solution and task spaces is carried out with the creation of two approximation models: (1) for mapping points in a unified solution space to the objective spaces of all tasks, which provably accelerates convergence by acting as a conduit for inter-task knowledge transfers, and (2) for probabilistically mapping tasks to their corresponding solutions, which facilitates evolutionary exploration of under-explored regions of the task space. In the online mode, the derived models enable direct optimization of any task within the bounds without the need to search from scratch. This outcome is validated on both synthetic test problems and practical case studies, with the significant real-world applicability of PMTO shown towards fast reconfiguration of robot controllers under changing task conditions. The potential of PMTO to vastly speedup the search for solutions to minimax optimization problems is also demonstrated through an example in robust engineering design.
Tingyang Wei, Jiao Liu, Abhishek Gupta +2
College of Computing and Data Science, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore · School of Mechanical Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Goa, India · Singapore Institute of Manufacturing Technology (SIMTech), Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore +1