The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Handling preferences in evolutionary multiobjective optimization: a survey
Abstract
Despite the relatively high volume of research conducted on evolutionary multiobjective optimization in the last few years. Little attention has been paid to the decision making process that is required to select a final solution to the multiobjective optimization problem at hand. This paper reviews the most important preference handling approaches used with evolutionary algorithms, analyzing their advantages and disadvantages, and then, it proposes some of the potential areas of future research in this discipline.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Evolutionary many-objective optimization: A short review
Ishibuchi, H., Tsukamoto, N., & Nojima, Y. (2008) · 2008 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence) · doi:10.1109/cec.2008.4631121 · Cited by 914
Techniques for highly multiobjective optimisation: some nondominated points are better than others
Corne, D. W., & Knowles, J. D. (2007) · Proceedings of the 9th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation · doi:10.1145/1276958.1277115 · Cited by 273
Metadata
- Authors
- Coello, C. A. C.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2000 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC00 (Cat. No.00TH8512)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2002-11-07
- Volume
- 1
- Pages
- 30-37
- OpenAlex
- W2170589503
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.64
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Handling preferences in evolutionary multiobjective optimization: a survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/cec.2000.870272
- The paper
- Coello, C. A. C. (2002). Handling preferences in evolutionary multiobjective optimization: a survey. Proceedings of the 2000 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC00 (Cat. No.00TH8512). https://doi.org/10.1109/cec.2000.870272
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
