The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Difficulty Adjustable and Scalable Constrained Multiobjective Test Problem Toolkit
Open accessAbstract
Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) have progressed significantly in recent decades, but most of them are designed to solve unconstrained multiobjective optimization problems. In fact, many real-world multiobjective problems contain a number of constraints. To promote research on constrained multiobjective optimization, we first propose a problem classification scheme with three primary types of difficulty, which reflect various types of challenges presented by real-world optimization problems, in order to characterize the constraint functions in constrained multiobjective optimization problems (CMOPs). These are feasibility-hardness, convergence-hardness, and diversity-hardness. We then develop a general toolkit to construct difficulty adjustable and scalable CMOPs (DAS-CMOPs, or DAS-CMaOPs when the number of objectives is greater than three) with three types of parameterized constraint functions developed to capture the three proposed types of difficulty. In fact, the combination of the three primary constraint functions with different parameters allows the construction of a large variety of CMOPs, with difficulty that can be defined by a triplet, with each of its parameters specifying the level of one of the types of primary difficulty. Furthermore, the number of objectives in this toolkit can be scaled beyond three. Based on this toolkit, we suggest nine difficulty adjustable and scalable CMOPs and nine CMaOPs, to be called DAS-CMOP1-9 and DAS-CMaOP1-9, respectively. To evaluate the proposed test problems, two popular CMOEAs—MOEA/D-CDP (MOEA/D with constraint dominance principle) and NSGA-II-CDP (NSGA-II with constraint dominance principle) and two popular constrained many-objective evolutionary algorithms (CMaOEAs)—C-MOEA/DD and C-NSGA-III—are used to compare performance on DAS-CMOP1-9 and DAS-CMaOP1-9 with a variety of difficulty triplets, respectively. The experimental results reveal that mechanisms in MOEA/D-CDP may be more effective in solving convergence-hard DAS-CMOPs, while mechanisms of NSGA-II-CDP may be more effective in solving DAS-CMOPs with simultaneous diversity-, feasibility-, and convergence-hardness. Mechanisms in C-NSGA-III may be more effective in solving feasibility-hard CMaOPs, while mechanisms of C-MOEA/DD may be more effective in solving CMaOPs with convergence-hardness. In addition, none of them can solve these problems efficiently, which stimulates us to continue to develop new CMOEAs and CMaOEAs to solve the suggested DAS-CMOPs and DAS-CMaOPs.
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
Self-citationNo 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
MOEA/D: A Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm Based on Decomposition
Zhang, Q., & Li, H. (2007) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/tevc.2007.892759 · Cited by 10,069
Self-citationMultiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach
Zitzler, E., & Thiele, L. (1999) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/4235.797969 · Cited by 8,798
Deb, K., & Jain, H. (2014) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/tevc.2013.2281535 · Cited by 7,133
Self-citationMuiltiobjective Optimization Using Nondominated Sorting in Genetic Algorithms
Srinivas, N., & Deb, K. (1994) · Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1162/evco.1994.2.3.221 · Cited by 6,935
Self-citationPerformance assessment of multiobjective optimizers: an analysis and review
Zitzler, E., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., Fonseca, C. M., & da Fonseca, V. G. (2003) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/tevc.2003.810758 · Cited by 4,330
An efficient constraint handling method for genetic algorithms
Deb, K. (2000) · Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering · doi:10.1016/s0045-7825(99)00389-8 · Cited by 3,892
Self-citationMultiobjective Optimization Problems With Complicated Pareto Sets, MOEA/D and NSGA-II
Li, H., & Zhang, Q. (2009) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/tevc.2008.925798 · Cited by 2,543
Self-citationCoello Coello, C. A. (2002) · Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering · doi:10.1016/s0045-7825(01)00323-1 · Cited by 2,343
Metadata
- Authors
- Fan, Z., Li, W., Cai, X., Li, H., Wei, C., Zhang, Q., Deb, K., & Goodman, E.
- Venue
- Evolutionary Computation
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 2020-09
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 339-378
- ISSN
- 1063-6560 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-9304
- OpenAlex
- W2582113504
- Cited by
- 308
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 8.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Difficulty Adjustable and Scalable Constrained Multiobjective Test Problem Toolkit. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/evco_a_00259
- The paper
- Fan, Z., Li, W., Cai, X., Li, H., Wei, C., Zhang, Q., Deb, K., & Goodman, E. (2020). Difficulty Adjustable and Scalable Constrained Multiobjective Test Problem Toolkit. Evolutionary Computation. https://doi.org/10.1162/evco_a_00259
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.