Papers › Quality Indicators for Preference-based Evolutionary Multi-objective Optimization...
Quality Indicators for Preference-based Evolutionary Multi-objective Optimization Using a Reference Point: A Review and Analysis
Ryoji Tanabe, Ke Li
Some quality indicators have been proposed for benchmarking preference-based evolutionary multi-objective optimization algorithms using a reference point. Although a systematic review and analysis of the quality indicators are helpful for both benchmarking and practical decision-making, neither has been conducted. In this context, first, this paper reviews existing regions of interest and quality indicators for preference-based evolutionary multi-objective optimization using the reference point. We point out that each quality indicator was designed for a different region of interest. Then, this paper investigates the properties of the quality indicators. We demonstrate that an achievement scalarizing function value is not always consistent with the distance from a solution to the reference point in the objective space. We observe that the regions of interest can be significantly different depending on the position of the reference point and the shape of the Pareto front. We identify undesirable properties of some quality indicators. We also show that the ranking of preference-based evolutionary multi-objective optimization algorithms depends on the choice of quality indicators.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections