Timing the decision support for real-world many-objective optimization problems

Lately, there is growing emphasis on improving the scalability of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) so that many-objective problems (characterized by more than three objectives) can be effectively dealt with. Alternatively, the utility of integrating decision maker’s (DM’s) preferences into the optimization process so as to target some most preferred solutions by the DM (instead of the whole Pareto-optimal front), is also being increasingly recognized. The authors here, have earlier argued that despite the promises in the latter approach, its practical utility may be impaired by the lack of—objectivity, repeatability, consistency, and coherence in the DM’s preferences. To counter this, the authors have also earlier proposed a machine learning based decision support framework to reveal the preference-structure of objectives. Notably, the revealed preference-structure may be sensitive to the timing of application of this framework along an MOEA run. In this paper the authors counter this limitation, by integrating a termination criterion with an MOEA run, towards determining the appropriate timing for application of the machine learning based framework. Results based on three real-world many-objective problems considered in this paper, highlight the utility of the proposed integration towards an objective, repeatable, consistent, and coherent decision support for many-objective problems

Optimistic Robust Optimization With Applications To Machine Learning

Robust Optimization has traditionally taken a pessimistic, or worst-case viewpoint of uncertainty which is motivated by a desire to find sets of optimal policies that maintain feasibility under a variety of operating conditions. In this paper, we explore an optimistic, or best-case view of uncertainty and show that it can be a fruitful approach. We show that these techniques can be used to address a wide variety of problems. First, we apply our methods in the context of robust linear programming, providing a method for reducing conservatism in intuitive ways that encode economically realistic modeling assumptions. Second, we look at problems in machine learning and find that this approach is strongly connected to the existing literature. Specifically, we provide a new interpretation for popular sparsity inducing non-convex regularization schemes. Additionally, we show that successful approaches for dealing with outliers and noise can be interpreted as optimistic robust optimization problems. Although many of the problems resulting from our approach are non-convex, we find that DCA or DCA-like optimization approaches can be intuitive and efficient

Human-Machine Collaborative Optimization via Apprenticeship Scheduling

Coordinating agents to complete a set of tasks with intercoupled temporal and resource constraints is computationally challenging, yet human domain experts can solve these difficult scheduling problems using paradigms learned through years of apprenticeship. A process for manually codifying this domain knowledge within a computational framework is necessary to scale beyond the ``single-expert, single-trainee" apprenticeship model. However, human domain experts often have difficulty describing their decision-making processes, causing the codification of this knowledge to become laborious. We propose a new approach for capturing domain-expert heuristics through a pairwise ranking formulation. Our approach is model-free and does not require enumerating or iterating through a large state space. We empirically demonstrate that this approach accurately learns multifaceted heuristics on a synthetic data set incorporating job-shop scheduling and vehicle routing problems, as well as on two real-world data sets consisting of demonstrations of experts solving a weapon-to-target assignment problem and a hospital resource allocation problem. We also demonstrate that policies learned from human scheduling demonstration via apprenticeship learning can substantially improve the efficiency of a branch-and-bound search for an optimal schedule. We employ this human-machine collaborative optimization technique on a variant of the weapon-to-target assignment problem. We demonstrate that this technique generates solutions substantially superior to those produced by human domain experts at a rate up to 9.5 times faster than an optimization approach and can be applied to optimally solve problems twice as complex as those solved by a human demonstrator.Comment: Portions of this paper were published in the Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) in 2016 and in the Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS) in 2016. The paper consists of 50 pages with 11 figures and 4 table

A Survey on Compiler Autotuning using Machine Learning

Since the mid-1990s, researchers have been trying to use machine-learning based approaches to solve a number of different compiler optimization problems. These techniques primarily enhance the quality of the obtained results and, more importantly, make it feasible to tackle two main compiler optimization problems: optimization selection (choosing which optimizations to apply) and phase-ordering (choosing the order of applying optimizations). The compiler optimization space continues to grow due to the advancement of applications, increasing number of compiler optimizations, and new target architectures. Generic optimization passes in compilers cannot fully leverage newly introduced optimizations and, therefore, cannot keep up with the pace of increasing options. This survey summarizes and classifies the recent advances in using machine learning for the compiler optimization field, particularly on the two major problems of (1) selecting the best optimizations and (2) the phase-ordering of optimizations. The survey highlights the approaches taken so far, the obtained results, the fine-grain classification among different approaches and finally, the influential papers of the field.Comment: version 5.0 (updated on September 2018)- Preprint Version For our Accepted Journal @ ACM CSUR 2018 (42 pages) - This survey will be updated quarterly here (Send me your new published papers to be added in the subsequent version) History: Received November 2016; Revised August 2017; Revised February 2018; Accepted March 2018