The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Metrics for Quality Assessment of a Multiobjective Design Optimization Solution Set
Abstract
In this paper, several new set quality metrics are introduced that can be used to evaluate the “goodness” of an observed Pareto solution set. These metrics, which are formulated in closed-form and geometrically illustrated, include hyperarea difference, Pareto spread, accuracy of an observed Pareto frontier, number of distinct choices and cluster. The metrics should enable a designer to either monitor the quality of an observed Pareto solution set as obtained by a multiobjective optimization method, or compare the quality of observed Pareto solution sets as reported by different multiobjective optimization methods. A vibrating platform example is used to demonstrate the calculation of these metrics for an observed Pareto solution set.
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
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
- Wu, J., & Azarm, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Mechanical Design
- Publisher
- ASME International
- Published
- 2000-01-01
- Volume
- 123
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 18-25
- ISSN
- 0161-8458 (ISSN-L)
- 1050-0472
- 1528-9001
- OpenAlex
- W2001591765
- Cited by
- 274
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.75
- Type
- journal article
- 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.
