Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Where should multi-objective reasoning enter a swarm optimizer: before the search through scalarization, around the search through survival or archiving, or inside the search through Pareto-informed leader selection? We study this question on the Mountain Gazelle Optimizer (MGO) and propose a feedback-path taxonomy that separates the three roles. A census of twenty multi-objective MGO extensions finds one prior leader-mediated design and no method that assigns per-agent leaders from a Pareto archive. We develop four leader-mediated variants on one search skeleton, with a random-leader control and a leader-isolation ablation. On twenty-two benchmark problems (thirty runs each), all four variants rank ahead of five paper-based reconstructions of prior MGO designs on three indicators, and the decomposition and indicator leader rules outrank random leadership on hypervolume and IGD+ under Holm correction. On fourteen held-out engineering problems, a refined indicator-guided design separates from NSGA-II, NSGA-III, MOEA/D, AGE-MOEA-II and SMS-EMOA on IGD+ under returned-set scoring, and from all but SMS-EMOA on hypervolume; under evaluation-trace scoring, only from NSGA-III and MOEA/D on IGD+. In sample, of the five it separates only from MOEA/D (ε-indicator, returned-set scoring). The four variants outperform the prior MGO designs as complete implementations; against established algorithms, the advantage depends on scoring.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thanarat et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: