What is considered a good value of hypervolume indicator for a given Pareto front surface?
For the multiobjective optimization algorithm applied to a specific problem, I am optimizing for 3 objectives. I obtained a hypervolume value of the Pareto front points equal to HV= 0.014 using a reliable c code that computes hypervolume index. I assume this is not a good value, is this right? When I saw sample example of 2 dimensional optimization in literature, values varied between 0.3 to 0.9. What is considered a good indicator value in my case?
|
|
Cross-posted here
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/66135817/what-is-considered-a-good-value-of-a-hypervolume-indicator-for-a-given-pareto-fr
and here
https://uk.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/answers/746397-what-is-considered-a-good-value-of-hypervolume-indicator-for-a-given-pareto-front-surface
You only added "using a reliable c code" to try and make it relevant to the forum.
The same search also found this.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378375814002006
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/66135817/what-is-considered-a-good-value-of-a-hypervolume-indicator-for-a-given-pareto-fr
and here
https://uk.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/answers/746397-what-is-considered-a-good-value-of-hypervolume-indicator-for-a-given-pareto-front-surface
You only added "using a reliable c code" to try and make it relevant to the forum.
The same search also found this.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378375814002006
@salem c
Why would it be wrong to post questions in different forum?
@OP
Did you google it? Like:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/pareto-optimal-front
Why would it be wrong to post questions in different forum?
@OP
Did you google it? Like:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/pareto-optimal-front
> Why would it be wrong to post questions in different forum?
It's not wrong as such, so long as the OP is open and up front about all the places they've posted.
But they seldom ever are.
If you've ever answered a question, only to find the same question with the same answer somewhere else, you realise just how much a waste of time your own effort was.
http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#forum
A corollary of the shotgun approach is urgency.
http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#urgent
The hope that if it's posted in enough places, an answer will emerge sooner than if posted on one forum.
The big problem with this is that it becomes an arms race - the only way to get an answer is to spam like mad, because all the helpers know questions have been spammed like mad. All forums become unusable and everybody who could help leaves.
So yeah, I post the cross references the OP failed to mention, so that the regulars can see whether they'd be wasting their time with some carefully thought out response, if what they wanted to say has already been said somewhere else.
@OP
> I am optimizing for 3 objectives.
Well if a good value for 1 objective is 0.014, and 0.3 to 0.9 for 2 objectives, then the answer for 3 objectives is 42.
It's not wrong as such, so long as the OP is open and up front about all the places they've posted.
But they seldom ever are.
If you've ever answered a question, only to find the same question with the same answer somewhere else, you realise just how much a waste of time your own effort was.
http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#forum
A corollary of the shotgun approach is urgency.
http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#urgent
The hope that if it's posted in enough places, an answer will emerge sooner than if posted on one forum.
The big problem with this is that it becomes an arms race - the only way to get an answer is to spam like mad, because all the helpers know questions have been spammed like mad. All forums become unusable and everybody who could help leaves.
So yeah, I post the cross references the OP failed to mention, so that the regulars can see whether they'd be wasting their time with some carefully thought out response, if what they wanted to say has already been said somewhere else.
@OP
> I am optimizing for 3 objectives.
Well if a good value for 1 objective is 0.014, and 0.3 to 0.9 for 2 objectives, then the answer for 3 objectives is 42.
| a hypervolume value of the Pareto front points equal to HV= 0.014 using a reliable c code that computes hypervolume index. I assume this is not a good value, is this right? |
If that's the probability that your pareto front points "dominate" (are objectively better than) a randomly chosen point then, no ... we won't be coming out of lockdown on that basis.
Last edited on
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.