# US 2019/0244686 A1 · Enhanced Optimization With Composite Objectives and Novelty-Diversity Selection > Agents: this data is available as JSON from the patentgrep API and MCP server — see https://patentgrep.com/llms.txt - Number: US 2019/0244686 A1 - Document ID: US20190244686A1 - Status: Published application - Kind: A1 - Application number: 16/268,463 - Filed: 2019-02-05 - Published: 2019-08-08 - Earliest claimed: 2018-02-06 - Assignees: Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation - Applicants: Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation - Inventors: Hormoz Shahrzad; Daniel Edward Fink; Risto Miikkulainen - Web page: https://patentgrep.com/patent/US20190244686A1 ## CPC - G16H 50/20: for computer-aided diagnosis, e.g. based on medical expert systems - G06F 18/2115: by evaluating different subsets according to an optimisation criterion, e.g. class separability, forward selection or backward elimination - G06F 18/2148: {characterised by the process organisation or structure, e.g. boosting cascade} - G16H 10/20: for electronic clinical trials or questionnaires - G16H 10/40: for data related to laboratory analysis, e.g. patient specimen analysis - G16H 50/70: for mining of medical data, e.g. analysing previous cases of other patients - G16H: HEALTHCARE INFORMATICS, i.e. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR THE HANDLING OR PROCESSING OF MEDICAL OR HEALTHCARE DATA - G06F: ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING (computer systems based on specific computational models G06N) ## Abstract A composite novelty method approach to deceptive problems where a secondary objective is available to diversify the search is described. In such cases, composite objectives focus the search on the most useful tradeoffs and allow escaping deceptive areas. Novelty-based selection increases exploration in the focus area, leading to better solutions, faster and more consistently and it can be combined with other fitness-based methods. ## Claims ### Claim 1 A computer-implemented method for finding a solution to a provided problem which optimizes a plurality of objectives, comprising the steps of: providing a computer system having a memory storing a candidate pool database identifying a pool of candidate individuals, each identifying a respective candidate solution to the provided problem; a computer system testing individuals from the pool of candidate individuals against a portion of training data to develop a plurality of objective values for each of the tested individuals, each of the objective values estimating the individual's level of success with respect to a corresponding one of the objectives; a computer system using a predefined dominance filter to select a first subset of individuals from the candidate pool database, the dominance filter being dependent upon a plurality of composite functions of the objectives, each of the composite functions being dependent on at least one of the of objectives and at least one of the composite functions being dependent on more than one of the objectives; a computer system procreating new individuals from a final subset of the individuals in the candidate pool database, the final subset being dependent upon the first subset; inserting the new individuals into the candidate pool database and repeating the steps of testing, selecting and procreating; and operating a controlled system in dependence upon at least one of the individuals from the candidate pool database. ### Claim 2 (depends on 1) The method of claim 1, further comprising a step, after each repetition of the step of selecting a first subset of the individuals, of selecting a second subset of individuals from the first subset of individuals, including selecting from the second subset a predetermined number of individuals having greater average behavioral novelty among the individuals in the first subset of individuals, than the average behavioral novelty of all others of the individuals from the first subset, the final subset of individuals being dependent upon the second subset of individuals. ### Claim 3 (depends on 2) The method of claim 2, further comprising a step, after each repetition of the step of selecting a second subset of individuals and prior to each subsequent repetition of the step of procreating new individuals from individuals in a final subset of the individuals, of: forming a third subset of individuals which is the subset of individuals from the first subset of individuals which are not selected into the second subset of individuals; and substituting individuals from the third subset of individuals into the second subset of individuals in a manner that improves the behavioral diversity of the individuals in the second set of individuals, to form the final set of individuals. ### Claim 4 (depends on 3) The method of claim 3, wherein substituting individuals from the third subset of individuals into the second subset of individuals comprises: adding an individual from the third subset of individuals to the second subset of individuals; selecting a pair of individuals from the second set of individuals that are least diverse from each other; and discarding one individual from the pair in dependence upon a predetermined filter until the number of individuals in the third set of individuals reaches zero. ### Claim 5 (depends on 4) The method of claim 4, wherein the predetermined filter is a dominance filter. ### Claim 6 (depends on 1) The method of claim 1, wherein using a predefined dominance filter to select a first subset of individuals from the candidate pool database comprises selecting from the first subset of individuals, individuals from the pool of candidate individuals that, in accordance with the predefined dominance filter, are not dominated by any other individuals in the pool. ### Claim 7 (depends on 6) The method of claim 6, wherein the predefined dominance filter is defined such that a first individual dominates over a second individual if and only if (a) a composite value of the first individual is better than a composite value of the second individual for at least one of the composite functions and (b) for all others of the composite functions, the composite value of the first individual is not worse than the composite value of the second individual. ### Claim 8 (depends on 2) The method of claim 2, where the average behavioral novelty for each individual xi is determined by the following: Average novelty score (xi)=Σj=1nd(b(xi),b(xj)) wherein b(x) is a behavioral value of an individual x and a behavioral difference between xi and xj is a distance between two individuals in a behavior space. ### Claim 9 A computer-implemented method for finding one or more optimal solutions to a predetermined problem wherein the one or more optimal solutions addresses a plurality of objectives, comprising: testing by a first computer-implemented program each candidate solution from a predetermined pool of candidate solutions against a portion of training data to develop objective values for each of the tested candidate solution, each of the objective values estimating the candidate solution's level of success with respect to a corresponding one of the plurality of objectives; selecting by a second computer-implemented program a first subset of candidate solutions from the candidate pool by application of a dominance filter, wherein the dominance filter compares a plurality of composite functions for each candidate solution in the first subset against other candidate solutions in the first subset, wherein the plurality of composite functions are dependent on the plurality of objectives and at least one of the composite functions being dependent on more than one of the objectives; selecting by a third computer-implemented program a second subset of a predetermined number of candidate solutions from the first subset of candidate solutions, wherein each of the candidate solutions in the second subset has greater average behavioral novelty among the candidate solutions in the first subset of candidate solutions, than the average behavioral novelty of all others of the candidate solutions from the first subset; selecting by a fourth computer-implemented program a final subset of candidate solutions from the second subset of candidate solutions, the final subset of candidate solutions containing the one or more optimal solutions to the predetermined problem. ### Claim 10 (depends on 9) The method of claim 9, wherein application of the dominance filter to select a first subset of candidate solutions comprises selecting candidate solutions that are not dominated by any other candidate solutions in the candidate pool. ### Claim 11 (depends on 10) The method of claim 10, wherein the dominance filter is defined such that a first candidate solutions dominates over a second candidate solutions if and only if (a) a composite value of the first candidate solution is better than a composite value of the second candidate solutions for at least one of the composite functions and (b) for all others of the composite functions, the composite value of the first candidate solutions is not worse than the composite value of the second candidate solutions. ### Claim 12 (depends on 9) The method of claim 9, where the average behavioral novelty for each individual xi is determined by the following: Average novelty score (xi)=Σj=1nd(b(xi),b(xj)) wherein b(x) is a behavioral value of an individual x and a behavioral difference between xi and xj is a distance between two individuals in a behavior space. ### Claim 13 A computer-implemented method for finding one or more optimal solutions to a predetermined problem wherein the one or more optimal solutions addresses a plurality of objectives, comprising: testing by a first computer-implemented program each candidate solution from a predetermined pool of candidate solutions against a portion of training data to develop objective values for each of the tested candidate solution, each of the objective values estimating the candidate solution's level of success with respect to a corresponding one of the plurality of objectives; selecting by a second computer-implemented program a first subset of candidate solutions from the candidate pool by application of a dominance filter, wherein the dominance filter compares a plurality of composite functions for each candidate solution in the first subset against other candidate solutions in the first subset, wherein the plurality of composite functions are dependent on the plurality of objectives and at least one of the composite functions being dependent on more than one of the objectives; selecting by a third computer-implemented program a second subset of a predetermined number of candidate solutions from the first subset of candidate solutions, wherein each of the candidate solutions in the second subset has greater average behavioral novelty among the candidate solutions in the first subset of candidate solutions, than the average behavioral novelty of all others of the candidate solutions from the first subset; forming by a fourth computer-implemented program a third subset of candidate solutions which is a remaining subset of candidate solutions from the first subset of candidate solutions which are not selected into the second subset of candidate solutions; and substituting candidate solutions from the third subset of candidate solutions into the second subset of individuals in a manner that improves the behavioral diversity of the individuals in the second set of individuals, to form a final set of candidate solutions, the final subset of candidate solutions containing the one or more optimal solutions to the predetermined problem. ### Claim 14 (depends on 13) The method of claim 13, wherein substituting candidate solutions from the third subset of candidate solutions into the second subset of candidate solutions comprises: adding a candidate solution from the third subset of candidate solutions to the second subset of candidate solutions; selecting a pair of candidate solutions from the second set of candidate solutions that are least diverse from each other; and discarding one candidate solutions from the pair in dependence upon a predetermined filter until the number of candidate solutions in the third set of candidate solutions reaches zero. ### Claim 15 (depends on 13) The method of claim 13, wherein application of the dominance filter to select a first subset of candidate solutions comprises selecting candidate solutions that are not dominated by any other candidate solutions in the candidate pool. ### Claim 16 (depends on 15) The method of claim 15, wherein the dominance filter is defined such that a first candidate solutions dominates over a second candidate solutions if and only if (a) a composite value of the first candidate solution is better than a composite value of the second candidate solutions for at least one of the composite functions and (b) for all others of the composite functions, the composite value of the first candidate solutions is not worse than the composite value of the second candidate solutions. ### Claim 17 (depends on 13) The method of claim 13, where the average behavioral novelty for each individual xi is determined by the following: Average novelty score (xi)=Σj=1nd(b(xi),b(xj)) wherein b(x) is a behavioral value of an individual x and a behavioral difference between xi and xj is a distance between two individuals in a behavior space.