The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
On metrics for comparing nondominated sets
Abstract
Evolutionary multiobjective optimization (EMO) boasts a proliferation of algorithms and benchmark problems. We need principled ways to compare the performance of different EMO algorithms, but this is complicated by the fact that the result of an EMO run is not a single scalar value, but a collection of vectors forming a nondominated set. Various metrics for nondominated sets have been suggested. We compare several, using the framework of 'outperformance relations' (Hansen and Jaszkiewicz, 1998). This enables us to criticize and contrast a variety of published metrics, leading to some recommendations on which seem most useful in practice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Comparison of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Empirical Results
Zitzler, E., Deb, K., & Thiele, L. (2000) · Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1162/106365600568202 · Cited by 5,697
A Fast Elitist Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm for Multi-objective Optimization: NSGA-II
Deb, K., Agrawal, S., Pratap, A., & Meyarivan, T. (2000) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/3-540-45356-3_83 · Cited by 5,289
Approximating the Nondominated Front Using the Pareto Archived Evolution Strategy
Knowles, J. D., & Corne, D. W. (2000) · Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1162/106365600568167 · Cited by 2,286
Self-citationEvolutionary algorithms for multiobjective optimization: methods and applications
Zitzler, E. (1999) · doi:10.3929/ethz-a-003856832 · Cited by 1,965
Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: classifications, analyses, and new innovations
Lamont, G. B., & Veldhuizen, D. A. V. (1999) · Cited by 1,212
Fault Tolerant Design Using Single and Multicriteria Genetic Algorithm Optimization.
Schott, J. R. (1995) · DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) · Cited by 1,015
PESA-II: region-based selection in evolutionary multiobjective optimization
Corne, D., Jerram, N. R., Knowles, J. D., & Oates, M. J. (2001) · Cited by 1,011
Self-citationCzyzżak, P., & Jaszkiewicz, A. (1998) · Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis · doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1360(199801)7:1<34::aid-mcda161>3.0.co;2-6 · Cited by 793
Evaluating the quality of approximations to the non-dominated set
Hansen, M. P., & Jaszkiewicz, A. (1998) · Cited by 301
Cited by
Knowles, J. (2006) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/tevc.2005.851274 · Cited by 1,254
Self-citationEvolutionary many-objective optimization: A short review
Ishibuchi, H., Tsukamoto, N., & Nojima, Y. (2008) · 2008 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence) · doi:10.1109/cec.2008.4631121 · Cited by 914
Covariance Matrix Adaptation for Multi-objective Optimization
Igel, C., Hansen, N., & Roth, S. (2007) · Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1162/evco.2007.15.1.1 · Cited by 788
Ishibuchi, H., Yoshida, T., & Murata, T. (2003) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/tevc.2003.810752 · Cited by 773
Deb, K., Mohan, M., & Mishra, S. (2005) · Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1162/106365605774666895 · Cited by 637
Metadata
- Authors
- Knowles, J., & Corne, D.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC'02 (Cat. No.02TH8600)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2003-06-25
- Volume
- 1
- Pages
- 711-716
- OpenAlex
- W1521316934
- Cited by
- 560
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 26.83
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: On metrics for comparing nondominated sets. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/cec.2002.1007013
- The paper
- Knowles, J., & Corne, D. (2003). On metrics for comparing nondominated sets. Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC'02 (Cat. No.02TH8600). https://doi.org/10.1109/cec.2002.1007013
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
