Surrogate Assisted Optimisation for Travelling Thief Problems

The travelling thief problem (TTP) is a multi-component optimisation problem involving two interdependent NP-hard components: the travelling salesman problem (TSP) and the knapsack problem (KP). Recent state-of-the-art TTP solvers modify the underlying TSP and KP solutions in an iterative and interleaved fashion. The TSP solution (cyclic tour) is typically changed in a deterministic way, while changes to the KP solution typically involve a random search, effectively resulting in a quasi-meandering exploration of the TTP solution space. Once a plateau is reached, the iterative search of the TTP solution space is restarted by using a new initial TSP tour. We propose to make the search more efficient through an adaptive surrogate model (based on a customised form of Support Vector Regression) that learns the characteristics of initial TSP tours that lead to good TTP solutions. The model is used to filter out non-promising initial TSP tours, in effect reducing the amount of time spent to find a good TTP solution. Experiments on a broad range of benchmark TTP instances indicate that the proposed approach filters out a considerable number of non-promising initial tours, at the cost of omitting only a small number of the best TTP solutions

Solving Travelling Thief Problems using Coordination Based Methods

A travelling thief problem (TTP) is a proxy to real-life problems such as postal collection. TTP comprises an entanglement of a travelling salesman problem (TSP) and a knapsack problem (KP) since items of KP are scattered over cities of TSP, and a thief has to visit cities to collect items. In TTP, city selection and item selection decisions need close coordination since the thief's travelling speed depends on the knapsack's weight and the order of visiting cities affects the order of item collection. Existing TTP solvers deal with city selection and item selection separately, keeping decisions for one type unchanged while dealing with the other type. This separation essentially means very poor coordination between two types of decision. In this paper, we first show that a simple local search based coordination approach does not work in TTP. Then, to address the aforementioned problems, we propose a human designed coordination heuristic that makes changes to collection plans during exploration of cyclic tours. We further propose another human designed coordination heuristic that explicitly exploits the cyclic tours in item selections during collection plan exploration. Lastly, we propose a machine learning based coordination heuristic that captures characteristics of the two human designed coordination heuristics. Our proposed coordination based approaches help our TTP solver significantly outperform existing state-of-the-art TTP solvers on a set of benchmark problems. Our solver is named Cooperation Coordination (CoCo) and its source code is available from https://github.com/majid75/CoCoComment: expanded and revised version of arXiv:1911.0312

Exact and heuristic approaches for multi-component optimisation problems

Modern real world applications are commonly complex, consisting of multiple subsystems that may interact with or depend on each other. Our case-study about wave energy converters (WEC) for the renewable energy industry shows that in such a multi-component system, optimising each individual component cannot yield global optimality for the entire system, owing to the influence of their interactions or the dependence on one another. Moreover, modelling a multi-component problem is rarely easy due to the complexity of the issues, which leads to a desire for existent models on which to base, and against which to test, calculations. Recently, the travelling thief problem (TTP) has attracted significant attention in the Evolutionary Computation community. It is intended to offer a better model for multicomponent systems, where researchers can push forward their understanding of the optimisation of such systems, especially for understanding of the interconnections between the components. The TTP interconnects with two classic NP-hard problems, namely the travelling salesman problem and the 0-1 knapsack problem, via the transportation cost that non-linearly depends on the accumulated weight of items. This non-linear setting introduces additional complexity. We study this nonlinearity through a simplified version of the TTP - the packing while travelling (PWT) problem, which aims to maximise the total reward for a given travelling tour. Our theoretical and experimental investigations demonstrate that the difficulty of a given problem instance is significantly influenced by adjusting a single parameter, the renting rate, which prompted our method of creating relatively hard instances using simple evolutionary algorithms. Our further investigations into the PWT problem yield a dynamic programming (DP) approach that can solve the problem in pseudo polynomial time and a corresponding approximation scheme. The experimental investigations show that the new approaches outperform the state-of-the-art ones. We furthermore propose three exact algorithms for the TTP, based on the DP of the PWT problem. By employing the exact DP for the underlying PWT problem as a subroutine, we create a novel indicator-based hybrid evolutionary approach for a new bi-criteria formulation of the TTP. This hybrid design takes advantage of the DP approach, along with a number of novel indicators and selection mechanisms to achieve better solutions. The results of computational experiments show that the approach is capable to outperform the state-of-the-art results.Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Adelaide, School of Computer Science, 201

Dynamic multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms

Dynamic Multi-objective Optimization Problems (DMOPs) offer an opportunity to examine and solve challenging real world scenarios where trade-off solutions between conflicting objectives change over time. Definition of benchmark problems allows modelling of industry scenarios across transport, power and communications networks, manufacturing and logistics. Recently, significant progress has been made in the variety and complexity of DMOP benchmarks and the incorporation of realistic dynamic characteristics. However, significant gaps still exist in standardised methodology for DMOPs, specific problem domain examples and in the understanding of the impacts and explanations of dynamic characteristics. This thesis provides major contributions on these three topics within evolutionary dynamic multi-objective optimization. Firstly, experimental protocols for DMOPs are varied. This limits the applicability and relevance of results produced and conclusions made in the field. A major source of the inconsistency lies in the parameters used to define specific problem instances being examined. The uninformed selection of these has historically held back understanding of their impacts and standardisation in experimental approach to these parameters in the multi-objective problem domain. Using the frequency and severity (or magnitude) of change events, a more informed approach to DMOP experimentation is conceptualized, implemented and evaluated. Establishment of a baseline performance expectation across a comprehensive range of dynamic instances for well-studied DMOP benchmarks is analyzed. To maximize relevance, these profiles are composed from the performance of evolutionary algorithms commonly used for baseline comparisons and those with simple dynamic responses. Comparison and contrast with the coverage of parameter combinations in the sampled literature highlights the importance of these contributions. Secondly, the provision of useful and realistic DMOPs in the combinatorial domain is limited in previous literature. A novel dynamic benchmark problem is presented by the extension of the Travelling Thief Problem (TTP) to include a variety of realistic and contextually justified dynamic changes. Investigation of problem information exploitation and it's potential application as a dynamic response is a key output of these results and context is provided through comparison to results obtained by adapting existing TTP heuristics. Observation driven iterative development prompted the investigation of multi-population island model strategies, together with improvements in the approaches to accurately describe and compare the performance of algorithm models for DMOPs, a contribution which is applicable beyond the dynamic TTP. Thirdly, the purpose of DMOPs is to reconstruct realistic scenarios, or features from them, to allow for experimentation and development of better optimization algorithms. However, numerous important characteristics from real systems still require implementation and will drive research and development of algorithms and mechanisms to handle these industrially relevant problem classes. The novel challenges associated with these implementations are significant and diverse, even for a simple development such as consideration of DMOPs with multiple time dependencies. Real world systems with dynamics are likely to contain multiple temporally changing aspects, particularly in energy and transport domains. Problems with more than one dynamic problem component allow for asynchronous changes and a differing severity between components that leads to an explosion in the size of the possible dynamic instance space. Both continuous and combinatorial problem domains require structured investigation into the best practices for experimental design, algorithm application and performance measurement, comparison and visualization. Highlighting the challenges, the key requirements for effective progress and recommendations on experimentation are explored here

Evolutionary Dynamic Multi-Objective Optimisation : A survey

Peer reviewedPostprin

Review of practice-led research in art, design & architecture

This review report sets out the outcomes of a 10 month investigation to describe the landscape of practice-led research in Art, Design and Architecture (ADA) in the UK and beyond. We were asked for a qualitative review but of course it has been important to gather some numbers to check and illustrate our observations. We have consulted widely, both face to face and in the virtual world, with experts and novices in the UK and around the world. We have tried to strike a balance between the natural desire of our colleagues to debate the more contentious aspects of this territory (they were never going to forgo that opportunity) and the equally strong wish of the AHRC that we should provide a clear description of what is happening. We have collected some diverse examples of research and subjected them to various examinations. We have also examined a selection of research projects funded by AHRC and other projects by creative practitioners, funded by a non-research organisation. From all this we have been able to describe the landscape in a straightforward sense: We have measures of the proportions of ADA academics involved in practice-led research. We have clarified differences in the ways that the different ADA disciplines engage with practice-led research and identified some problems that indicate possible future support strategies. We have discussed some problems with general definitions of research and identified issues that should be addressed to ensure that the AHRC definition can be applied to the full range of practice-led research. We have picked out some specific case examples that illustrate the range of contexts, methods and contributions made by practice-led researchers, and more are described in detail in Appendix F. We have also sought to assess how this research relates to the wider international picture in which the UK appears to have a strong position in both volume and development of research. We have also set out some issues that affect this community of researchers: What strengths and weaknesses have we observed and where is there a need to support development? Do the AHRC definition of research and guidance on practice-led research provide an effective framework? We have illustrated the state of development of research in ADA, and some reasons why it is less robust than might be expected from such long established disciplines. We recommend that the career path of researchers in ADA needs some attention and make some suggestions about how that could be achieved. We have also indicated some areas of inquiry that might be supported to advance the theory and methods of practice-led research. In particular we have come to the conclusion that conventional ideas of contribution to knowledge or understanding may not be serving us well. This is significant to fine artists but we believe that it relevant across ADA and a shared effort to develop appropriate new models would be a constructive development. The full set of recommendations can be found in chapter 5