You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
The quality of solution sets generated by decomposition-based evolutionary multiobjective optimisation (EMO) algorithms depends heavily on the consistency between a given problem's Pareto front shape and the specified weights' distribution. A set of weights distributed uniformly in a simplex often lead to a set of well-distributed solutions on a Pareto front with a simplex-like shape, but may fail on other Pareto front shapes. It is an open problem on how to specify a set of appropriate weights without the information of the problem's Pareto front beforehand. In this paper, we propose an approach to adapt the weights during the evolutionary process (called AdaW). AdaW progressively seeks a suitable distribution of weights for the given problem by elaborating five parts in the weight adaptation --- weight generation, weight addition, weight deletion, archive maintenance, and weight update frequency. Experimental results have shown the effectiveness of the proposed approach. AdaW works well for Pareto fronts with very different shapes: 1) the simplex-like, 2) the inverted simplex-like, 3) the highly nonlinear, 4) the disconnect, 5) the degenerated, 6) the badly-scaled, and 7) the high-dimensional.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: Multiple-objective metaheuristics, e.g., multiple-objective evolutionary algorithms, constitute one of the most active fields of multiple-objective optimization. Since 1985, a significant number of different methods have been proposed. However, only few comparative studies of the methods were performed on large-scale problems. We continue two comparative experiments on the multiple-objective 0 1 knapsack problem reported in the literature. We compare the performance of two multiple-objective genetic local search (MOGLS) algorithms to the best performers in the previous experiments using the same test instances. The results of our experiment indicate that our MOGLS algorithm generates better approximations to the nondominated set in the same number of functions evaluations than the other algorithms.

[2]: Many-objective problems (MAPs) have put forward a number of challenges to classical Pareto-dominance based multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) for the past few years. Recently, researchers have suggested that MOEA D (multi-objective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition) can work for MAPs. However, there exist two difficulties in applying MOEA D to solve MAPs directly. One is that the number of constructed weight vectors is not arbitrary and the weight vectors are mainly distributed on the boundary of weight space for MAPs. The other is that the relationship between the optimal solution of subproblem and its weight vector is nonlinear for the Tchebycheff decomposition approach used by MOEA D. To deal with these two difficulties, we propose an improved MOEA D with uniform decomposition measurement and the modified Tchebycheff decomposition approach (MOEA D-UDM) in this paper. Firstly, a novel weight vectors initialization method based on the uniform decomposition measurement is introduced to obtain uniform weight vectors in any amount, which is one of great merits to use our proposed algorithm. The modified Tchebycheff decomposition approach, instead of the Tchebycheff decomposition approach, is used in MOEA D-UDM to alleviate the inconsistency between the weight vector of subproblem and the direction of its optimal solution in the Tchebycheff decomposition approach. The proposed MOEA D-UDM is compared with two state-of-the-art MOEAs, namely MOEA D and UMOEA D on a number of MAPs. Experimental results suggest that the proposed MOEA D-UDM outperforms or performs similarly to the other compared algorithms in terms of hypervolume and inverted generational distance metrics on different types of problems. The effects of uniform weight vector initializing method and the modified Tchebycheff decomposition are also studied separately.

[3]: This paper proposes an alternate method for finding several Pareto optimal points for a general nonlinear multicriteria optimization problem. Such points collectively capture the trade-off among the various conflicting objectives. It is proved that this method is independent of the relative scales of the functions and is successful in producing an evenly distributed set of points in the Pareto set given an evenly distributed set of parameters, a property which the popular method of minimizing weighted combinations of objective functions lacks. Further, this method can handle more than two objectives while retaining the computational efficiency of continuation-type algorithms. This is an improvement over continuation techniques for tracing the trade-off curve since continuation strategies cannot easily be extended to handle more than two objectives.

[4]: 

[5]: To extend multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition (MOEA D) in higher dimensional objective spaces, this paper proposes a new version of MOEA D with uniform design, named the uniform design multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition (UMOEA D), and compares the proposed algorithm with MOEA D and NSGA-II on some scalable test problems with three to five objectives. UMOEA D adopts the uniform design method to set the aggregation coefficient vectors of the subproblems. Compared with MOEA D, distribution of the coefficient vectors is more uniform over the design space, and the population size neither increases nonlinearly with the number of objectives nor considers a formulaic setting. The experimental results indicate that UMOEA D outperforms MOEA D and NSGA-II on almost all these many-objective test instances, especially on problems with higher dimensional objectives and complicated Pareto set shapes. Experimental results also show that UMOEA D runs faster than NSGA-II for the problems used in this paper. In additional, the results obtained are very competitive when comparing UMOEA D with some other algorithm on the multiobjective knapsack problems.

[6]: Decomposition is a well-known strategy in traditional multiobjective optimization. However, the decomposition strategy was not widely employed in evolutionary multiobjective optimization until Zhang and Li proposed multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition (MOEA D) in 2007. MOEA D proposed by Zhang and Li decomposes a multiobjective optimization problem into a number of scalar optimization subproblems and optimizes them in a collaborative manner using an evolutionary algorithm (EA). Each subproblem is optimized by utilizing the information mainly from its several neighboring subproblems. Since the proposition of MOEA D in 2007, decomposition-based MOEAs have attracted significant attention from the researchers. Investigations have been undertaken in several directions, including development of novel weight vector generation methods, use of new decomposition approaches, efficient allocation of computational resources, modifications in the reproduction operation, mating selection and replacement mechanism, hybridizing decomposition- and dominance-based approaches, etc. Furthermore, several attempts have been made at extending the decomposition-based framework to constrained multiobjective optimization, many-objective optimization, and incorporate the preference of decision makers. Additionally, there have been many attempts at application of decomposition-based MOEAs to solve complex real-world optimization problems. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of the decomposition-based MOEAs proposed in the last decade.

[7]: Decomposition-based algorithms have become increasingly popular for evolutionary multiobjective optimization. However, the effect of scalarizing methods used in these algorithms is still far from being well understood. This paper analyzes a family of frequently used scalarizing methods, the @math methods, and shows that the @math value is crucial to balance the selective pressure toward the Pareto optimal and the algorithm robustness to Pareto optimal front (PF) geometries. It demonstrates that an @math method that can maximize the search ability of a decomposition-based algorithm exists and guarantees that, given some weight, any solution along the PF can be found. Moreover, a simple yet effective method called Pareto adaptive scalarizing (PaS) approximation is proposed to approximate the optimal @math value. In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of PaS, we incorporate PaS into a state-of-the-art decomposition-based algorithm, i.e., multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition (MOEA D), and compare the resultant MOEA D-PaS with some other MOEA D variants on a set of problems with different PF geometries and up to seven conflicting objectives. Experimental results demonstrate that the PaS is effective.

[8]: While Pareto-based multiobjective optimization algorithms continue to show effectiveness for a wide range of practical problems that involve mostly two or three objectives, their limited application for many-objective problems, due to the increasing proportion of nondominated solutions and the lack of sufficient selection pressure, has also been gradually recognized. In this paper, we revive an early developed and computationally expensive strength Pareto-based evolutionary algorithm by introducing an efficient reference direction-based density estimator, a new fitness assignment scheme, and a new environmental selection strategy, for handling both multiobjective and many-objective problems. The performance of the proposed algorithm is validated and compared with some state-of-the-art algorithms on a number of test problems. Experimental studies demonstrate that the proposed method shows very competitive performance on both multiobjective and many-objective problems considered in this paper. Besides, our extensive investigations and discussions reveal an interesting finding, that is, diversity-first-and-convergence-second selection strategies may have great potential to deal with many-objective optimization.

[9]:
A basic assumption in decomposition-based EMO is that the diversity of the weight vectors will result in the diversity of the Pareto optimal solutions. This motivates several studies on how to generate a set of uniformly distributed weight vectors [6] , such as the simplex-lattice design [3] , two-layer simplex lattice design [9] , multi-layer simplex lattice design [8] , uniform design [5] , and a combination of the simplex-lattice design and uniform design [2] . A weakness of such systematic weight generators is that the number of generated weight vectors is not flexible, especially in a high-dimensional space. This contrasts with the uniform random sampling method [1] which can generate an arbitrary number of weight vectors for any dimension. In addition, some work has shown that if the geometry of the problem is known then the optimal distribution of the weight vectors for a specific scalarizing function can be readily identified [4] [7] .