Parameter Optimization Using Genetic Algorithms and Pareto Fronts

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing methods for configuring machine-learning algorithms with large data sets are inefficient and require manual, time-consuming experimentation due to the vast number of possible parameter combinations, often leading to suboptimal choices.

Innovation Solution

A genetic algorithm-based system that intelligently optimizes parameter configurations by generating and evaluating Pareto Fronts to provide recommended configurations efficiently, using techniques like NSGA-II and tree structures to handle multiple objectives.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If manual parameter selection based on personal judgement is used, then the configuration process is simple and quick to start, but the optimization quality and effectiveness are poor

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveparameter optimization qualityVSAvoidtime for parameter experimentation
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs self-optimization of parameters through automated genetic algorithms and Pareto front analysis, eliminating the need for manual trial-and-error experimentation. The algorithm autonomously evaluates thousands of parameter combinations and identifies optimal configurations without human intervention.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The patent replaces manual mechanical experimentation with computer-based automated optimization systems. Genetic algorithms and computational models substitute human judgment and physical trial-and-error with algorithmic evaluation and mathematical optimization.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

2Measurement precision

If exhaustive evaluation of all possible parameter combinations is performed, then the optimization completeness is maximized, but the computational complexity becomes impossible to solve

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveconfiguration optimization completenessVSAvoidcomputational complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent extracts only the most promising parameter combinations from the vast search space by identifying Pareto optimal solutions. Instead of evaluating all possible combinations, the system extracts and focuses computational resources on configurations that represent the best trade-offs among conflicting objectives.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically changes evaluation parameters during the optimization process, adapting the search strategy based on intermediate results. Genetic algorithms modify parameter combinations iteratively, focusing exploration on regions of the parameter space that show promise for achieving multiple objectives simultaneously.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Adaptability or versatility

If multiple interdependent objectives are optimized simultaneously, then the comprehensive performance improvement is maximized, but the difficulty of finding optimal configurations increases significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemulti-objective optimization capabilityVSAvoidoptimization problem difficulty
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements a universal optimization framework that handles multiple conflicting objectives simultaneously through Pareto front analysis. The system evaluates configurations against multiple objectives (e.g., accuracy, speed, resource usage) and identifies solutions that represent optimal trade-offs across all objectives, making the system adaptable to diverse optimization scenarios.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The Pareto front serves as an intermediary representation that mediates between conflicting objectives. Instead of directly optimizing multiple contradictory goals, the system uses the Pareto front as an intermediate structure to capture the trade-offs, allowing decision-makers to select from balanced configurations rather than forcing a single optimal solution.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

4Productivity

If planners manually experiment with different parameter configurations, then the flexibility to explore options is maintained, but the efficiency and speed of obtaining optimal results deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveparameter configuration efficiencyVSAvoidtime to achieve optimal configuration
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary automated evaluation of parameter configurations before deployment. By pre-computing and ranking configurations using genetic algorithms and Pareto analysis, the system prepares optimized recommendations in advance, eliminating the need for time-consuming manual experimentation after deployment decisions are needed.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentUS20250238676A1Systems and methods for parameter optimization
Publication Date: 2025.07.24 KINAXIS INC
  • US20250238676A1 patent drawing
  • US20250238676A1 patent drawing
  • US20250238676A1 patent drawing

AI summary

Methods and systems that provide one or more recommended configurations to planners using large data sets in an efficient manner. These methods and systems provide optimization of objectives using a genetic algorithm that can provide parameter recommendations that optimize one or more objectives in an efficient and timely manner. The methods and systems disclosed herein are flexible enough to satisfy diverse use cases.