Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation 2013
DOI: 10.1145/2463372.2463451
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison of different algorithms for the calculation of dominated hypervolumes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This algorithm takes advantage of the bounding boxes to compute the exclusive contributions of points that are then used for the hypervolume computation. The asymptotic time does not seem to be very good, but experimental and theoretical evidence shows that is the fastest exact algorithm for high dimensions [16], [17]. For dimensions bigger than 10, however, the computation time increases toward unfeasible values.…”
Section: B Hypervolume Metricmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This algorithm takes advantage of the bounding boxes to compute the exclusive contributions of points that are then used for the hypervolume computation. The asymptotic time does not seem to be very good, but experimental and theoretical evidence shows that is the fastest exact algorithm for high dimensions [16], [17]. For dimensions bigger than 10, however, the computation time increases toward unfeasible values.…”
Section: B Hypervolume Metricmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This partly explains the success of NSGA-II, which has excellent diversity retention and can be classed as a general solver. Despite this, most of the currently developed EAs utilize a "convergence first, diversity second" approach (Liu et al, 2017) where the mechanisms that promote convergence are preferred, while diversity is obtained using secondary methods such as crowding distance calculations (Deb et al, 2002), external archive refining (Zitzler et al, 2001), problem decomposition (Zhang and Li, 2007;Liu and Li, 2009;, or indicator-based solution selection (Zitzler and Simon, 2004;Beume et al, 2007;Priester et al, 2013). A recent methodology developed by Grudniewski and Sobey (2018), Sobey and Grudniewski (2018), multilevel selection genetic algorithm (MLSGA), introduces a multilevel selection (MLS) mechanism, via subpopulations called collectives.…”
Section: The Requirement For General Algorithmsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The main advantage of HV is its strictly Pareto compliance property [27]. However, it is difficult to compute the exact value of HV for a large solution set with many objectives, although some fast computational methods have been proposed for approximating HV [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. For example, Sharpe-Ratio [33], [34] is such an indicator with interesting properties and not as time consuming as hypervolume indicator.…”
Section: B Related Studies On Quality Indicatorsmentioning
confidence: 99%