Cited by 273Advanced Multi-Objective Optimization AlgorithmsEvolutionary Algorithms and ApplicationsMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research

Techniques for highly multiobjective optimisation: some nondominated points are better than others

Corne, David W., Knowles, Joshua D.·2007·Proceedings of the 9th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation

Abstract

The research area of evolutionary multiobjective optimization (EMO) is reaching better understandings of the properties and capabilities of EMO algorithms, and accumulating much evidence of their worth in practical scenarios. An urgent emerging issue is that the favoured EMO algorithms scale poorly when problems have "many" (e.g. five or more) objectives. One of the chief reasons for this is believed to be that, in many-objective EMO search, populations are likely to be largely composed of nondominated solutions. In turn, this means that the commonly-used algorithms cannot distinguish between these for selective purposes. However, there are methods that can be used validly to rank points in a nondominated set, and may therefore usefully underpin selection in EMO search. Here we discuss and compare several such methods. Our main finding is that simple variants of the often-overlooked "Average Ranking" strategy usually outperform other methods tested, covering problems with 5-20 objectives and differing amounts of inter-objective correlation. Copyright 2007 ACM.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/1276958.1277115

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Corne, D. W., & Knowles, J. D.
Affiliations
  • Heriot-Watt University (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the 9th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation
Publisher
ACM
Published
2007-07-07
Pages
773-780
OpenAlex
W2139196352
Cited by
273
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 12
FWCI
12.54
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO) (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Advanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Keywords
many-objective optimization, multi-objective evolutionary algorithms, Pareto optimal solutions, selection strategies, population diversity, scalability

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