Several algorithms/techniques have been proposed and studied to solve such problems. With this context, these algorithms are assessed in one of two ways, viz. theoretical, and empirical analysis. In theoretical analysis, a principled methodology is carried out to derive an analytical bound of the (run-time) solution quality. After t evaluations/steps, the quality of the returned solution is evaluated by a loss/regret measure.
Alternatively, empirical analysis employs experimental simulations of the algorithm on complex problems, gaining an insight on the algorithm’s practicality/applicability on real-world problems. With this regard, most of the time, methods proposed to solve MOPs are benchmarked on a different set of problems under arbitrary budgets of function evaluation. We are interested in empirically assessing published/novel multi-objective optimization algorithms in a unified (constantly updated) framework.
We invite the multi-objective community to test their published/novel algorithms in solving 100 MOPs reported in the literature where the feasible decision space has simple bound constraints, i.e., problems for which X=[l,u] and l<u. The benchmark validates the efficacy of the algorithms by computing several quality indicators which are reported in terms of data profiles.
Dec 06
2016
Dec 09
2016
Draft paper submission deadline
Final Paper Deadline
Registration deadline
Submit Comment