Evolutionary Multi-objective Optimisation in Neurotrajectory Prediction

TL;DR

This paper explores the use of evolutionary multi-objective optimization algorithms, NSGA-II and MOEA/D, for neurotrajectory prediction, highlighting their differences and the impact of objective scaling on model performance.

Contribution

It advances neuroevolution for vehicle trajectory prediction by comparing two EMO algorithms and analyzing the effects of objective scaling and specific objectives.

Findings

MOEA/D better focuses on specific objectives due to its mechanism.

NSGA-II is more invariant to objective scaling.

Including distance feedback was detrimental to model validity.

Abstract

Machine learning has rapidly evolved during the last decade, achieving expert human performance on notoriously challenging problems such as image classification. This success is partly due to the re-emergence of bio-inspired modern artificial neural networks (ANNs) along with the availability of computation power, vast labelled data and ingenious human-based expert knowledge as well as optimisation approaches that can find the correct configuration (and weights) for these networks. Neuroevolution is a term used for the latter when employing evolutionary algorithms. Most of the works in neuroevolution have focused their attention in a single type of ANNs, named Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). Moreover, most of these works have used a single optimisation approach. This work makes a progressive step forward in neuroevolution for vehicle trajectory prediction, referred to as neurotrajectory prediction, where multiple objectives must be considered. To this end, rich ANNs composed of CNNs and Long-short Term Memory Network are adopted. Two well-known and robust Evolutionary Multi-objective Optimisation (EMO) algorithms, NSGA-II and MOEA/D are also adopted. The completely different underlying mechanism of each of these algorithms sheds light on the implications of using one over the other EMO approach in neurotrajectory prediction. In particular, the importance of considering objective scaling is highlighted, finding that MOEA/D can be more adept at focusing on specific objectives whereas, NSGA-II tends to be more invariant to objective scaling. Additionally, certain objectives are shown to be either beneficial or detrimental to finding valid models, for instance, inclusion of a distance feedback objective was considerably detrimental to finding valid models, while a lateral velocity objective was more beneficial.