Techniques for highly multiobjective optimisation: some nondominated points are better than others
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Existing MOO algorithms perform poorly with more than five objectives.
“The study in [42] shows that the existing MOO algorithms perform poorly with more than five objectives.”
From Leveraging 3GPP Features and Optimization Techniques for 5G NR-V2X Resource Allocation: A Survey (2025) · cites this paper as [42]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Platemo: a matlab platform for evolutionary multi-objective optimization [educational forum]
Tian, Y., Cheng, R., Zhang, X., & Jin, Y. (2017) · IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine · doi:10.1109/mci.2017.2742868 · Cited by 2,777 · see citing works
Leveraging 3GPP Features and Optimization Techniques for 5G NR-V2X Resource Allocation: A Survey
Bin Ali Wael, C., Hadj Dogheche, E., Armi, N., Subekti, A., & Dayoub, I. (2025) · IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems · doi:10.1109/ojits.2025.3584024 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
“The study in [42] shows that the existing MOO algorithms perform poorly with more than five objectives.”
- 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