The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A review of multiobjective test problems and a scalable test problem toolkit
Abstract
When attempting to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of an algorithm, it is important to have a strong understanding of the problem at hand. This is true for the field of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms (EAs) as it is for any other field. Many of the multiobjective test problems employed in the EA literature have not been rigorously analyzed, which makes it difficult to draw accurate conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of the algorithms tested on them. In this paper, we systematically review and analyze many problems from the EA literature, each belonging to the important class of real-valued, unconstrained, multiobjective test problems. To support this, we first introduce a set of test problem criteria, which are in turn supported by a set of definitions. Our analysis of test problems highlights a number of areas requiring attention. Not only are many test problems poorly constructed but also the important class of nonseparable problems, particularly nonseparable multimodal problems, is poorly represented. Motivated by these findings, we present a flexible toolkit for constructing well-designed test problems. We also present empirical results demonstrating how the toolkit can be used to test an optimizer in ways that existing test suites do not
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
Cites
A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II
Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., & Meyarivan, T. (2002) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/4235.996017 · Cited by 50,053
No free lunch theorems for optimization
Wolpert, D. H., & Macready, W. G. (1997) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/4235.585893 · Cited by 14,237
Cited by
Platemo: a matlab platform for evolutionary multi-objective optimization [educational forum]
Tian, Y., Cheng, R., Zhang, X., & Jin, Y. (2017) · IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine · doi:10.1109/mci.2017.2742868 · Cited by 2,777
Tian, Y., Cheng, R., Zhang, X., Cheng, F., & Jin, Y. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/tevc.2017.2749619 · Cited by 699
Liu, Z.-Z., & Wang, Y. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/tevc.2019.2894743 · Cited by 486
Automated Algorithm Selection: Survey and Perspectives
Kerschke, P., Hoos, H. H., Neumann, F., & Trautmann, H. (2019) · Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1162/evco_a_00242 · Cited by 435
A Survey on the Hypervolume Indicator in Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization
Shang, K., Ishibuchi, H., He, L., & Pang, L. M. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/tevc.2020.3013290 · Cited by 380
Metadata
- Authors
- Huband, S., Hingston, P., Barone, L., & While, L.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation
- Published
- 2006-10
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 477-506
- ISSN
- 1089-778X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2143185749
- Cited by
- 2,090
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 20.16
- Type
- journal article
- 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: A review of multiobjective test problems and a scalable test problem toolkit. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tevc.2005.861417
- The paper
- Huband, S., Hingston, P., Barone, L., & While, L. (2006). A review of multiobjective test problems and a scalable test problem toolkit. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation. https://doi.org/10.1109/tevc.2005.861417
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.