Introduce normalization of F in NSGA3 extreme point calculation #557
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
added 3 commits
February 2, 2024 16:26
…ulations (energy reduction method) to produce the same output
…ion calculations (energy reduction method) to produce the same output" This reverts commit 0f45e3a. revert commit
|
Thanks for your work and PR. Have you benchmark this change? Can you post some benchmark results here with this change? |
# for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
# to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As the extreme point calculation is happening as a weighted and aggregated optimization (max(__F * weights)), I think it would be better to normalize __F beforehand. Otherwise, the resulting extreme points could have a bias towards objective functions (F) with higher magnitude (in case the objective values of different objective functions are highly unbalanced).