The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Performance metrics in multi-objective optimization
Abstract
In the last decades, a large number of metrics has been proposed to compare the performance of different evolutionary approaches in multi-objective optimization. This situation leads to difficulties when comparisons among the output of different algorithms are needed and appropriate metrics must be selected to perform those comparisons. Hence, no complete agreement on what metrics should be used exists. This paper presents a review and analysis of 54 multi-objective-optimization metrics in the specialized literature, discussing the usage, tendency and advantages/disadvantages of the most cited ones in order to give researchers enough information when choosing metrics is necessary. The review process performed in this work indicates that the hypervolume is the most used metric, followed by the generational distance, the epsilon indicator and the inverted generational distance.
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
A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II
Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., & Meyarivan, T. (2002) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/4235.996017 · Cited by 50,053
Cited by
Laszczyk, M., & Myszkowski, P. B. (2019) · Swarm and Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1016/j.swevo.2019.04.001 · Cited by 79
Metadata
- Authors
- Riquelme, N., Von Lucken, C., & Baran, B.
- Venue
- 2015 Latin American Computing Conference (CLEI)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2015-10
- Pages
- 1-11
- OpenAlex
- W2207649084
- Cited by
- 444
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 17.77
- 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
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.
