Multiobjective Optimization Grover Adaptive Search

  • Benjamín Barán
  • Marcos VillagraEmail author
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 795)


Quantum computing is a fast evolving subject with a promise of highly efficient solutions to difficult and complex problems in science and engineering. With the advent of large-scale quantum computation, a lot of effort is invested in finding new applications of quantum algorithms. In this article, we propose an algorithm based on Grover’s adaptative search for multiobjective optimization problems where access to the objective functions is given via two different quantum oracles. The proposed algorithm, considering both types of oracles, are compared against NSGA-II, a highly cited multiobjective optimization evolutionary algorithm. Experimental evidence suggests that the quantum optimization method proposed in this work is at least as effective as NSGA-II in average, considering an equal number of executions.


Multiobjective Optimization Problem (MOP) Quantum Adiabatic Algorithm Grover Operator Oracle Performance Hypervolume Metric 
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.


  1. 1.
    von Lücken, C., Barán, B., Brizuela, C.: A survey on multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for many-objective problems. Comput. Optim. Appl. 58(3), 707–756 (2014)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barán, B., Villagra, M.: Multiobjective optimization in a quantum adiabatic computer. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 329, 27–38 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shor, P.W.: Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. In: Proceedings of 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 124–134 (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grover, L.K.: A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of computing (STOC), pp. 212–219 (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McGeoch, C.C.: Adiabatic Quantum Computation and Quantum Annealing. Synthesis Lectures on Quantum Computing. Morgan & Claypool (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farhi, E., Goldstone, J., Gutman, S., Sipser, M.: Quantum Computation by Adiabatic Evolution (2000). arXiv:quant-ph/0001106
  7. 7.
    Baritompa, W.P., Bulger, D.W., Wood, G.R.: Grover’s quantum algorithm applied to global optimization. SIAM J. Optim. 15(4), 1170–1184 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6(2), 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fogel, G., Barán, B., Villagra, M.: Comparison of two types of quantum oracles based on Grovers adaptative search algorithm for multiobjective optimization problems. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Computational Optimization, Federated Conference in Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), ACSIS 11, pp. 421–428, Prague, Czech Republic, 3–6 Sept 2017Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dürr, C., Høyer, P.: A quantum algorithm for finding the minimum (1996). arXiv:quant-ph/9607014
  11. 11.
    Nielsen, M.A., Chuang, I.L.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge university press (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bennett, C.H., Bernstein, E., Brassard, G., Vazirani, U.: Strengths and weaknesses of quantum computing. SIAM J Comput 26(5), 1510–1523 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Born, M., Vladimir Fock, F.: Beweis des adiabatensatzes. Z. für Phys. 51(3–4), 165–180 (1926)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lipton, R.J., Regan, K.W.: Quantum Algorithms via Linear Algebra. MIT Press (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chase, N., Rademacher, M., Goodman, E., Averill, R., Sidhu, R.: A benchmark study of multi-objective optimization methods. BMK-3021, Rev 6 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Riquelme, N., Baran, B., von Lücken, C.: Performance metrics in multi-objective optimization. In: Proceedings of the 41st Latin American Computing Conference (CLEI) (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zitzler, E., Thiele, L.: Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 3(4), 257–271 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Nacional de Asunción, NIDTECSan LorenzoParaguay

Personalised recommendations