Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

CEC

Benchmarks

Task NameDataset NameSOTA ResultTrend
Black-box OptimizationCEC 30D 2017
Mean Objective Value0
90
Function OptimizationCEC 100D 2017
Mean Value2,093.826
80
Numerical OptimizationCEC 50 dimensions 2017
Mean Objective Value0
37
Dynamic Multi-objective OptimizationCEC DF2 2018
MHV0.8368
32
Numerical OptimizationCEC D=10 2022
Friedman Rank1
30
Numerical OptimizationCEC F10 2022
Average Value1.786
18
Numerical OptimizationCEC F3 2022
Average Score6
18
Numerical OptimizationCEC F2 2022
Average1.334
18
Numerical OptimizationCEC F1 2022
Average Value3
18
Dynamic Multi-objective OptimizationCEC DF3 2018
MHV Score50.2
16
Numerical OptimizationCEC D=20 2022
Friedman Rank3.17
15
Constrained Multi-objective OptimizationCEC CMOP (15 problems) 2025
Speed52,875.5
12
Numerical OptimizationCEC 50D F19 2017
Mean Value2,056.599
12
Numerical OptimizationCEC 50D F17 2017
Mean Value2,339.293
12
Numerical OptimizationCEC 50D F16 2017
Mean2,469.641
12
Numerical OptimizationCEC 50D F14 2017
Mean Value1,705.921
12
Numerical OptimizationCEC 50D F12 2017
Mean Objective Value3,675.482
12
Numerical OptimizationCEC F30 Composition 50D 2017
Mean Objective Value3,545.922
12
Numerical OptimizationCEC F28 Composition 50D 2017
Mean Objective Value3,287.072
12
Numerical OptimizationCEC F25 Composition 50D 2017
Mean Objective Value2,968.833
12
Numerical OptimizationCEC F24 (Composition, 50D) 2017
Mean Objective Value2,963.059
12
Numerical OptimizationCEC F23 Composition 50D 2017
Mean Value2,790.402
12
Numerical OptimizationCEC F22 Composition 50D 2017
Mean Objective Value5,376.747
12
Numerical OptimizationCEC Function F6 2022
Best Objective Value1.011
10
Global OptimizationCEC Function F10 (D=20) 2022
Final Best Objective Value1.233
10
Showing 25 of 245 rows
...