A Hypervolume-Based Optimizer for High-Dimensional Objective Spaces

  • Johannes BaderEmail author
  • Eckart Zitzler
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems book series (LNE, volume 638)


In the field of evolutionary multiobjective optimization, the hypervolume indicator is the only single set quality measure that is known to be strictly monotonic with regard to Pareto dominance. This property is of high interest and relevance for multiobjective search involving a large number of objective functions. However, the high computational effort required for calculating the indicator values has so far prevented to fully exploit the potential of hypervolume-based multiobjective optimization. This paper addresses this issue and proposes a fast search algorithm that uses Monte Carlo sampling to approximate the exact hypervolume values. In detail, we present HypE (Hypervolume Estimation Algorithm for Multiobjective Optimization), by which the accuracy of the estimates and the available computing resources can be traded off; thereby, not only many-objective problems become feasible with hypervolume-based search, but also the runtime can be flexibly adapted. The experimental results indicate that HypE is highly effective for many-objective problems in comparison to existing multiobjective evolutionary algorithms.


Monte Carlo Sampling Mating Selection Environmental Selection Pareto Dominance Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Johannes Bader has been supported by the Indo-Swiss Joint Research Program IT14.


  1. Bader J, Zitzler E (2008) HypE: an algorithm for fast hypervolume-based many-objective optimization. TIK Report 286, Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory (TIK), ETH Zurich, November 2008Google Scholar
  2. Bader J, Deb K, Zitzler E (2008) Faster hypervolume-based search using Monte Carlo sampling. In: Conference on multiple criteria decision making (MCDM 2008). Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  3. Beume N, Rudolph G (2006) Faster S-metric calculation by considering dominated hypervolume as Klee’s measure problem. Technical Report CI-216/06, Sonderforschungsbereich 531 Computational Intelligence, Universität Dortmund. Shorter version published at IASTED international conference on computational intelligence (CI 2006)Google Scholar
  4. Beume N, Fonseca CM, Lopez-Ibanez M, Paquete L, Vahrenhold J (2007a) On the complexity of computing the hypervolume indicator. Technical Report CI-235/07, University of Dortmund, December 2007Google Scholar
  5. Beume N, Naujoks B, Emmerich M (2007b) SMS-EMOA: multiobjective selection based on dominated hypervolume. Eur J Oper Res 181:1653–1669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bleuler S, Laumanns M, Thiele L, Zitzler E (2003) PISA – a platform and programming language independent interface for search algorithms. In: Fonseca CM et al (eds) Conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (EMO 2003). LNCS, vol 2632. Springer, Berlin, pp 494–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradstreet L, Barone L, While L (2006) Maximising hypervolume for selection in multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. In: Congress on evolutionary computation (CEC 2006), pp 6208–6215, Vancouver, BC, Canada. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  8. Bringmann K, Friedrich T (2008) Approximating the volume of unions and intersections of high-dimensional geometric objects. In: Hong SH, Nagamochi H, Fukunaga T (eds) International symposium on algorithms and computation (ISAAC 2008), LNCS, vol 5369. Springer, Berlin, pp 436–447Google Scholar
  9. Brockhoff D, Zitzler E (2007) Improving hypervolume-based multiobjective evolutionary algorithms by using objective reduction methods. In: Congress on evolutionary computation (CEC 2007), pp 2086–2093. IEEE PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Conover WJ (1999) Practical nonparametric statistics, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. Deb K, Agrawal S, Pratap A, Meyarivan T (2000) A fast elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization: NSGA-II. In: Schoenauer M et al (eds) Conference on parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN VI). LNCS, vol 1917. Springer, Berlin, pp. 849–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deb K, Thiele L, Laumanns M, Zitzler E (2005) Scalable test problems for evolutionary multi-objective optimization. In: Abraham A, Jain R, Goldberg R (eds) Evolutionary multiobjective optimization: theoretical advances and applications, chap 6. Springer, Berlin, pp 105–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Emmerich M, Beume N, Naujoks B (2005) An EMO algorithm using the hypervolume measure as selection criterion. In: Conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (EMO 2005). LNCS, vol 3410. Springer, Berlin, pp 62–76Google Scholar
  15. Emmerich M, Deutz A, Beume N (2007) Gradient-based/evolutionary relay hybrid for computing Pareto front approximations maximizing the S-metric. In: Hybrid metaheuristics. Springer, Berlin, pp 140–156Google Scholar
  16. Everson R, Fieldsend J, Singh S (2002) Full elite-sets for multiobjective optimisation. In: Parmee IC (ed) Conference on adaptive computing in design and manufacture (ADCM 2002), pp 343–354. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Fleischer M (2003) The measure of Pareto optima. Applications to multi-objective metaheuristics. In: Fonseca CM et al (eds) Conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (EMO 2003), Faro, Portugal. LNCS, vol 2632. Springer, Berlin, pp 519–533Google Scholar
  18. Fonseca CM, Paquete L, López-Ibáñez M (2006) An improved dimension-sweep algorithm for the hypervolume indicator. In: Congress on evolutionary computation (CEC 2006), pp 1157–1163, Sheraton Vancouver Wall Centre Hotel, Vancouver, BC Canada. IEEE PressGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  20. Huband S, Hingston P, White L, Barone L (2003) An evolution strategy with probabilistic mutation for multi-objective optimisation. In: Congress on evolutionary computation (CEC 2003), vol 3, pp 2284–2291, Canberra, Australia. IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  21. Huband S, Hingston P, Barone L, While L (2006) A review of multiobjective test problems and a scalable test problem toolkit. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 10(5):477–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Igel C, Hansen N, Roth S (2007) Covariance matrix adaptation for multi-objective optimization. Evol Comput 15(1):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knowles JD (2002) Local-search and hybrid evolutionary algorithms for Pareto optimization. PhD thesis, University of ReadingGoogle Scholar
  24. Knowles J, Corne D (2003) Properties of an adaptive archiving algorithm for storing nondominated vectors. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 7(2):100–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laumanns M, Rudolph G, Schwefel H-P (1999) Approximating the Pareto set: concepts, diversity issues, and performance assessment. Technical Report CI-7299, University of DortmundGoogle Scholar
  26. Mostaghim S, Branke J, Schmeck H (2007) Multi-objective particle swarm optimization on computer grids. In: Proceedings of the 9th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation (GECCO 2007), pp 869–875, New York, USA. ACMGoogle Scholar
  27. Nicolini M (2005) A two-level evolutionary approach to multi-criterion optimization of water supply systems. In: Conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (EMO 2005). LNCS, vol 3410. Springer, Berlin, pp 736–751Google Scholar
  28. Van Veldhuizen DA (1999) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: classifications, analyses, and new innovations. PhD thesis, Graduate School of Engineering, Air Force Institute of Technology, Air UniversityGoogle Scholar
  29. Wagner T, Beume N, Naujoks B (2007) Pareto-[4], aggregation-, and indicator-based methods in many-objective optimization. In: Obayashi S et al (eds) Conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (EMO 2007). LNCS, vol 4403. Springer, Berlin, pp 742–756. Extended version published as internal report of Sonderforschungsbereich 531 Computational Intelligence CI-217/06, Universität Dortmund, September 2006Google Scholar
  30. While L (2005) A new analysis of the LebMeasure algorithm for calculating hypervolume. In: Conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (EMO 2005), Guanajuato, México. LNCS, vol 3410. Springer, Berlin, pp 326–340Google Scholar
  31. While L, Hingston P, Barone L, Huband S (2006) A faster algorithm for calculating hypervolume. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 10(1):29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yang Q, Ding S (2007) Novel algorithm to calculate hypervolume indicator of Pareto approximation set. In: Advanced intelligent computing theories and applications. With aspects of theoretical and methodological issues, Third international conference on intelligent computing (ICIC 2007), vol 2, pp 235–244Google Scholar
  33. Zamora LP, Burguete STG (2008) Second-order preferences in group decision making. Oper Res Lett 36:99–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zitzler E (1999) Evolutionary algorithms for multiobjective optimization: methods and applications. PhD thesis, ETH Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  35. Zitzler E (2001) Hypervolume metric calculation.
  36. Zitzler E, Künzli S (2004) Indicator-based selection in multiobjective search. In: Yao X et al (eds) Conference on parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN VIII). LNCS, vol 3242. Springer, Berlin, pp 832–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zitzler E, Thiele L (1998a) An evolutionary approach for multiobjective optimization: the strength Pareto approach. TIK Report 43, Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory (TIK), ETH ZurichGoogle Scholar
  38. Zitzler E, Thiele L (1998b) Multiobjective optimization using evolutionary algorithms – a comparative case study. In: Conference on parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN V), pp 292–301, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  39. Zitzler E, Thiele L (1999) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3(4):257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zitzler E, Laumanns M, Thiele L (2002) SPEA2: improving the strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization. In: Giannakoglou KC et al (eds) Evolutionary methods for design, optimisation and control with application to industrial problems (EUROGEN 2001), pp 95–100. International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering (CIMNE)Google Scholar
  41. Zitzler E, Thiele L, Laumanns M, Fonseca CM, Grunert da Fonseca V (2003) Performance assessment of multiobjective optimizers: an analysis and review. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 7(2):117–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zitzler E, Brockhoff D, Thiele L (2007) The hypervolume indicator revisited: on the design of Pareto-compliant indicators via weighted integration. In: Obayashi S et al (eds) Conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (EMO 2007). LNCS, vol 4403. Springer, Berlin, pp 862–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zitzler E, Thiele L, Bader J (2008) On set-based multiobjective optimization. TIK Report 300, Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory (TIK), ETH ZurichGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Engineering and Networks Lab, ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations