[@MOEADDE], MOEA/D-CMA [@MOEADCMA], IM-MOEA[@IM-MOEA], GDE3 [@GDE3], and SPEA2 [@SPEA2]. NSGA-II and SPEA2 are selected as they both adopt crossover and mutation operators for offspring generation. MOEA/D-DE and GDE3 are selected as they both adopt the differential evolution operator. MOEA/D-CMA is chosen as it is a representative MBEA, which uses the covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy for multi-objective optimization. Besides, IM-MOEA is selected as it is an MBEA using the inverse models to generate offspring solutions for multi-objective optimization. The two experiments are summarized as follows:

-   The effectiveness of our proposed training method is examined according to the qualities of the offspring solutions generated by the GANs which are trained by different methods.

-   The general performance of our proposed GMOEA is compared with the six algorithms on ten IMF problems with up to 200 decision variables.

In the remainder of this section, we first present a brief introduction to the experimental settings of all the compared algorithms. Then the test problems and performance indicators are described. Afterwards, each algorithm is run for 20 times on each test problem independently. Then the Wilcoxon rank sum test  [@haynes2013wilcoxon] is used to compare the results obtained by the proposed GMOEA and the compared algorithms at a significance level of 0.05. Symbols ‘$+$’, ‘$-$’, and ‘$\approx$’ indicate the compared algorithm is significantly better than, significantly worse than, and statistically tied by GMOEA, respectively.

Experimental settings
---------------------

For fair comparisons, we adopt the recommended parameter settings for the compared algorithms that have achieved the best performance as reported in the literature. The six compared algorithms are implemented in PlatEMO using Matlab [@PlatEMO], and our proposed GMOEA is implemented in Pytorch using Python 3.6. All the algorithms are run on a PC with Intel Core i9 3.3 GHz processor, 32 GB of RAM, and 1070Ti GPU. *1) Reproduction Operators.* In this work, the simulated binary crossover (SBX) [@review-book] and the polynomial mutation (PM) [@PM] are adopted for offspring generation in NSGA-II and SPEA2. The distribution
[ @MOEADDE ], MOEA / D - CMA   [ @MOEADCMA ], IM - MOEA[@IM - MOEA ], GDE3 [ @GDE3 ], and SPEA2   [ @SPEA2 ]. NSGA - II and SPEA2 are selected as they both adopt crossover and mutation operator for young generation. MOEA / D - DE and GDE3 are selected as they both dramatize the differential development operator. MOEA / D - CMA is chosen as it is a representative MBEA, which uses the covariance matrix adaptation development scheme for multi - objective optimization. Besides, IM - MOEA is selected as it is an MBEA using the inverse models to generate offspring solution for multi - objective optimization. The two experiments are summarized as follow: 

 -    The effectiveness of our proposed training method is examined according to the quality of the offspring solutions generated by the GANs which are prepare by different methods. 

 -    The general performance of our propose GMOEA is compared with the six algorithms on ten IMF problems with up to 200 decision variables. 

 In the end of this section, we first present a brief introduction to the experimental settings of all the compare algorithms. Then the test problems and performance indicators are described. Afterwards, each algorithm is run for 20 times on each test trouble independently. Then the Wilcoxon rank and file sum examination   [ @haynes2013wilcoxon ] is use to compare the results obtained by the proposed GMOEA and the compare algorithms at a significance level of 0.05. Symbols ‘ $ + $ ’, ‘ $ -$ ’, and ‘ $ \approx$ ’ bespeak the compared algorithm is significantly better than, significantly worse than, and statistically tied by GMOEA, respectively. 

 Experimental place setting 
 --------------------- 

 For fair comparisons, we adopt the recommended argument settings for the compare algorithm that have achieve the best performance as reported in the literature. The six compared algorithms are implemented in PlatEMO using Matlab   [ @PlatEMO ], and our proposed GMOEA is follow through in Pytorch using Python 3.6. All the algorithms are run on a PC with Intel Core i9 3.3 gigahertz processor, 32 GB of RAM, and 1070Ti GPU. * 1) Reproduction Operators. * In this work, the simulated binary crossover (SBX)   [ @review - record ] and the polynomial mutation (PM)   [ @PM ] are adopt for offspring coevals in NSGA - II and SPEA2. The distribution
[@MOEWDDE], MOEA/D-CMA [@MOEADCMA], IM-OOEA[@IM-MOEA], GDE3 [@YEE3], and SPEA2 [@SLEA2]. NSGA-KI and SPEA2 are selected as vhey both adopt crossover and mjtation oierators dor idfspring gxheratiok. MOEZ/F-DE cnv GDE3 are selecjed as they toth adopt the dkfyerential evolution operator. MOEA/D-CMW is chpsfn as it is a teprexqntafpvt MBEA, which uses the covariance jatrix edaptation evolition strategy for multi-obuectlve optimization. Bfsides, IM-MOGZ if selected as it is an MBEA using tge inverse models to generate owfsprnng solutiobs fog multi-objecvive oitimization. Tmv two efperimemts are summarlzed es fillows:

-   The effectivxness of our proposeq traininc jethod is examinee qccorging to gye duamiviea of tje kffspring aolutions gwnerated by the GANx ryich are traihed by dyfferent methods.

-   The general performatce of our proposed GMOEA us compared with the dix algorythms on ten IMF problems with up to 200 decision vasiablxs.

Kn uhc fwmwinder of this section, we first present a briqr onnroduction to the experimentsl srjtings of all jhe com'zrsd algorithms. Then the teft priblems anq petformance indicators are dewcribed. Aftegwares, each algorithm ns run for 20 cimes pn eavh test problem indepenbently. Then the Wllcoxon rzvk sum test  [@haynds2013wplcofon] is used to compare the results ibtanned by ghe kroposeq GMOEA anf the compared algorithmd at c sigtificance pevel of 0.05. Symbols ‘$+$’, ‘$-$’, and ‘$\approx$’ midicate the cpm[arvd algorichm is significantlr better than, xignifieantly worse thah, and svatistically tied by GMOED, respectivelb.

Experimegtal setrings
---------------------

Fof fair comparispns, we adopt the rexommended parametev setjihgs for the com'crtd algorithms thst favq wciieveq the best pesforoanzr as feported in ghe kiterature. The six cmmpaded algorithms are iiplementgd in PlaeEMO using Maylab [@PlatEMO], and oug pro'osed JMOEA os ymplemented in Pytorch using Pgthon 3.6. Alp tme algorithms are run on a PC with Intel Core i9 3.3 GHz processor, 32 GB oh RAM, and 1070Ti GPU. *1) Reproeuction Operators.* Iu uhis work, the simujated bindry crossover (SBX) [@revuew-book] and the pplynomial mutation (PM) [@LM] are adophed for offspring generation in NSGA-II and SPEA2. The distribution
[@MOEADDE], MOEA/D-CMA [@MOEADCMA], IM-MOEA[@IM-MOEA], GDE3 [@GDE3], and NSGA-II SPEA2 are as they both for generation. MOEA/D-DE and are selected as both adopt the differential evolution operator. is chosen as it is a representative MBEA, which uses the covariance matrix evolution strategy for multi-objective optimization. Besides, IM-MOEA is selected as it is an using inverse to offspring solutions for multi-objective optimization. The two experiments are summarized as follows: - The effectiveness of proposed training method is examined according to the of the offspring solutions by the GANs which are by methods. - general of proposed GMOEA is with the six algorithms on ten IMF problems with up to 200 decision variables. In the remainder this section, present a introduction the settings of all algorithms. Then the test problems and described. Afterwards, each algorithm is run for 20 on each problem independently. Then the Wilcoxon rank test [@haynes2013wilcoxon] is used to compare the results by the proposed GMOEA and the compared algorithms at a significance level of 0.05. Symbols and ‘$\approx$’ indicate the algorithm is significantly than, worse and tied by respectively. Experimental settings --------------------- For fair comparisons, we adopt the recommended settings for the compared algorithms that have achieved the best reported the literature. The compared algorithms are implemented PlatEMO Matlab [@PlatEMO], and our is in 3.6. the are run on a with Intel Core i9 3.3 processor, 32 GB of Reproduction Operators.* In this work, the simulated binary (SBX) [@review-book] and the polynomial mutation (PM) are adopted for offspring generation in NSGA-II and SPEA2. The distribution
[@MOEADDE], MOEA/D-CMA [@MOEADCMA], IM-mOEA[@IM-MOEA], gDE3 [@GDe3], anD SPeA2 [@sPEA2]. nSGA-iI and SPEA2 are seLEcteD as they both adopt crossoVer anD mUTatiON oPeratOrs for oFFsPRIng GeNeRatIoN. mOeA/D-DE And gDE3 are sElected as tHey BoTh adopt the diFFeRential evoLutIon operator. MoEA/d-CMA is ChOseN As it iS a rEpresEntatiVE MBEA, wHich uses tHe COvariaNCe matriX ADaPtatIon evolution stratEGy FOr multi-objectiVe optiMiZAtION. BeSidEs, IM-MOEA is SeLecteD As it is aN mBea USinG The inverse modEls to generaTE ofFsprinG sOluTIons foR multI-oBJecTive optimizAtioN. The two exPerimeNTs are suMMarized As follOws:

-   the EffeCTiVeNesS oF Our PRoPosED trAining meThOd Is exaMineD ACCOrdiNg tO the QualiTies of the offsPriNg soLUtiOns geNeratEd by ThE GANs Which aRe traInEd by different meThodS.

-   The generAl pErForMaNce of OUr propOseD GMoEA is coMpared wITh tHe SIX AlGorithms on ten IMF prObLEMs With up to 200 DecisiON vArIAbles.

In tHe RemAindER Of thiS secTIoN, we first PresenT A bRiEf introDuCtion tO tHe eXpeRimenTAl seTtings Of all the CompaREd algorithms. ThEN the test problEMs AND pERforManCe indicatorS are DEscrIbed. aFtErwARds, eaCh algOrIThM Is run for 20 times on each TeSt probLem inDependently. ThEn the WilcoXON Rank sum tEst  [@hAYnES2013wilcoxon] is useD to coMpare the reSUlts obtaIned bY the propOsed GMOEA AND the compAreD alGorIthMS At A significance LEVel oF 0.05. SYmbols ‘$+$’, ‘$-$’, aNd ‘$\aPprox$’ inDicAte The ComPaRed algoriThm is sigNiFiCaNtLy bEtter THan, signiFiCanTlY woRse thAN, and stAtistIcalLy TiED by gMOEA, reSPeCTIvelY.

EXpErimEntAl SettiNgs
---------------------

FOR faIr compaRisons, we aDopT The rEcOmMended pArameter settiNgS for the comPaRed AlgoriTHMs that haVe achieved the best perforMAnce as rEpoRted iN the LiteraturE. ThE six coMpaREd algoRithms Are imPlEmeNTEd in PLATEmO uSiNg Matlab [@PlATeMO], And ouR pRopoSed GMOEa is implemented in PyTOrcH using Python 3.6. ALl tHe alGORiThmS ArE Run On A pC wITH Intel Core i9 3.3 GHz pRocessor, 32 GB Of raM, And 1070Ti GPU. *1) RePRodUcTion OpeRators.* IN this WOrk, the sImulated bInary crosSoVer (Sbx) [@RevIew-book] and The polynOmial mutaTIon (PM) [@pm] aRe adoPteD for ofFsPriNg genEratioN In NsGA-II And SPEa2. THe distRibutIoN
[@MOEADDE], MOEA/D-CMA [@M OEADCMA],IM-MO EA[ @IM -M OEA] , GD E3 [@GDE3], an d  SPE A2 [@SPEA2]. NSGA-II a nd SP EA 2  are se lecte d as th e yb o thad op t c ro s so ver a ndmutatio n operator s f or  offspring g e ne ration. MO EA/ D-DE and GDE 3 a re sel ec ted as th eybothadoptt he dif ferential  e v olutio n  operat o r .MOEA /D-CMA is chosena si t is a represe ntativ eM BE A ,  wh ich  uses theco varia n ce matr i xa d a pta t ion evolution  strategy f o r m ulti-o bj ect i ve opt imiza ti o n.Besides, IM -MOE A is sele cted a s  it isa n MBEAusingthe  in vers e  m od els  t o  ge n er ate off spring s ol ut ionsform u l t i-ob jec tive  opti mization. The  tw o ex p eri ments  aresumm ar izedas fol lows: 
-   The effecti vene ss of our  pr op ose dtrain i ng met hod  is  examin ed acco r din gt o th e qualities of the  o f f sp ring sol utions ge ne r ated byth e G ANsw h ich a re t r ai ned by d iffere n tme thods.
-    The  g ene ral  perf o rman ce ofour prop osedG MOEA is compar e d with the si x  a l g or i thms  on  ten IMF pr oble m s wi th u p  t o 2 0 0 dec ision  v a ri a bles.

In the remai nd er ofthissection, we f irst prese n t a briefintr o du c tion to the ex perim ental sett i ngs of a ll th e compar ed algori t h ms. Then  th e t est  pr o b le ms and perfor m a ncein dicator s a re desc rib ed.  Af ter wa rds, each  algorit hm  i sru n f or 20 times on  e ach  t est  prob l em ind epend entl y.  T h enthe Wil c ox o n  ran ksu m te st [ @hayn es20 1 3wi lcoxon]  is usedtoc ompa re  t he resu lts obtainedby  the propo se d G MOEA a n d  the com pared algorithms at a s i gnifica nce  leve l of  0.05. Sy mbo ls ‘$+ $’, ‘$-$’,  and ‘ $\app ro x$’ i ndica t e  t heco mpared alg o r ith m issi gnif icantly  better than, sign i fic antly worse t han , an d st ati s ti c all yt ied b y GMOEA, respec tively.

E xp e ri mental set t ing s------- ------- ----- - -

Forfair comp arisons,we  ado p t  th e recommen ded para meter set t ingsf or  thecom paredal gor ithms  thath ave  achi eved t he  bestperfo rm ance asreported in the literat ure. T he si x c ompared a lgo r ith ms are im plem ented in P lat EMO  usin g M a tlab[@Pl a tE MO] ,  andourp roposed G M OE A i s im plemented i n P yto rch u sin g  Pytho n 3. 6. All the algori t hms are run on  a P C wit h I n telCo re i9 3.3 GHzpro ce s s or, 32 G Bof RAM, and  1070TiGP U . *1)  Repro ductio n Opera t o rs . * In t hiswor k, the si mul at e d binar ycr o ssover  (SB X)  [@rev iew-bo o k] a n d  the polynomialmutat i o n (PM )  [@ PM] a re  adopte d  for  offspring  generation  in NS GA-I I and  SPEA2.  T he dis tri bu tion
[@MOEADDE], MOEA/D-CMA [@MOEADCMA],_IM-MOEA[@IM-MOEA], GDE3_[@GDE3], and SPEA2 [@SPEA2]. NSGA-II_and SPEA2_are_selected as_they_both adopt crossover_and mutation operators_for offspring generation. MOEA/D-DE_and GDE3 are_selected_as they both adopt the differential evolution operator. MOEA/D-CMA is chosen as it is_a_representative MBEA,_which_uses_the covariance matrix adaptation evolution_strategy for multi-objective optimization. Besides,_IM-MOEA is_selected as it is an MBEA using the_inverse_models to generate_offspring solutions for multi-objective optimization. The two experiments are_summarized as follows:

-   The_effectiveness of our_proposed_training_method is examined according_to the qualities of the offspring_solutions generated by the GANs which_are trained by different methods.

-  _The general performance of our proposed_GMOEA is compared with the_six algorithms_on ten IMF problems with_up to 200_decision variables.

In_the remainder of_this section, we first present a_brief introduction to_the experimental settings of all the_compared_algorithms. Then the_test_problems_and performance_indicators are described._Afterwards,_each algorithm_is_run for 20 times on each_test_problem independently. Then the Wilcoxon rank sum_test  [@haynes2013wilcoxon] is used_to_compare the results obtained_by the proposed GMOEA and_the compared algorithms at a significance_level of_0.05. Symbols_‘$+$’, ‘$-$’, and ‘$\approx$’ indicate the compared algorithm is significantly better_than, significantly worse than, and statistically_tied by GMOEA, respectively.

Experimental_settings
---------------------

For fair_comparisons,_we adopt the_recommended_parameter settings_for the compared algorithms that have achieved_the best_performance as reported in the literature._The six compared algorithms_are_implemented in PlatEMO using Matlab [@PlatEMO], and_our proposed GMOEA is implemented in_Pytorch using Python 3.6. All_the_algorithms_are run on a PC_with Intel Core i9 3.3 GHz_processor, 32 GB_of RAM, and 1070Ti GPU. *1) Reproduction_Operators.*_In this work, the simulated binary_crossover_(SBX) [@review-book] and the polynomial mutation (PM) [@PM]_are_adopted_for offspring generation in NSGA-II_and SPEA2. The distribution