HEMO: Harness Self-Evolution for Multi-Objective Combinatorial Optimization
Authors: Jianghan Zhu, Cong Zhang, Ni Zhang, Yifan Yang, Yew Soon Ong, Zhiguang Cao
Organizations: School of Computing and Information Systems, Singapore Management University, Singapore · College of Computing and Data Science, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore · Huawei Noah's Ark Lab · TikTok Singapore · independent researcher
Automatic operator design (AOD) has increasingly adopted large language models (LLMs) to generate problem-specific search and variation operators for multi-objective combinatorial optimization (MOCO). Yet most methods evolve the operators while leaving the process that discovers them fixed. This limits adaptation as new Pareto trade-offs and operator interactions change where and how the search should proceed. We introduce HEMO, which makes the AOD harness itself a self-evolving optimization target. HEMO maintains a persistent harness state and updates one module at a time, revising the logic that determines which experience to retrieve, which operators to improve, which parents to select, and how to formulate the orchestration of search steps. Downstream solution quality and runtime guide these updates, while a discounted UCB scheduler directs adaptation toward promising modules as their utility changes. A persistent memory filesystem preserves candidate outcomes and diagnostic feedback across harness states, enabling successive states to build on accumulated optimization experience. Experiments across eight MOCO tasks and two structurally distinct evolutionary backbones demonstrate strong performance against conventional evolutionary, neural, and LLM-based AOD baselines, together with effective transfer to related tasks. HEMO extends automatic operator design beyond evolving individual operators to improving the search process that discovers them.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Paradigms of LLM-based AOD characterized by agent autonomy and harness adaptivity. Fixed evolutionary AOD (upper left) uses agents as role-specific tools within a predefined evolutionary loop, whereas independent AOD harness search (upper right) evaluates separately sampled but internally fixed harnesses. Agent-autonomic AOD (lower left) allows the agent to control candidate generation and feedback inspection within a fixed outer AOD loop, while stateful AOD harness self-evolution, adopted by HEMO in the lower-right quadrant, evolves the stateful harness itself through persistent module-level transitions, allowing search control and the use of accumulated experience to co-adapt over time under outer-agent guidance.
Fig. 2: Overview of HEMO . Along the outer state transition trajectory, a selected decision module is revised and incorporated into the parent harness to form the child harness for the next evaluation episode, while optimization experience is retained in the memory filesystem.
Bi-TSP
Bi-CVRP
Bi-KP
Method
N=20
N=50
N=100
N=20
N=50
N=100
N=50
N=100
N=200
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
SEMO
0.5878
29.411
0.4612
35.476
0.3674
42.621
0.4840
9.726
0.3380
8.991
0.2987
10.691
0.3543
14.528
0.3917
8.146
0.2912
16.284
NSGA-II
0.5600
1102.171
0.3860
1099.551
0.3120
985.188
0.6025
1178.418
0.5420
1162.623
0.5199
1530.646
0.3581
1045.565
0.4024
551.730
0.3207
529.589
MOEA/D
0.5874
136.718
0.4385
146.027
0.3696
183.499
0.5893
–
0.5288
–
0.5347
–
0.3541
–
0.4040
–
0.3285
–
PFG-MOEA
0.5906
74.886
0.4601
63.210
0.3847
86.956
0.5888
123.347
0.4527
225.457
0.3469
317.618
0.3562
68.912
0.4041
67.459
0.3250
67.129
TABLE I: Average performance of the best-HV candidate selected from the final Pareto front of each of four independent runs on the three source tasks. Time denotes runtime in seconds per instance. The best value in each column is shown in bold ; “–” denotes runs that exceeded the time limit.
Tri-TSP
Bi-SPDP
Bi-MDKP
Method
N=20
N=50
N=100
N=20
N=50
N=100
N=50
N=100
N=200
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
SEMO
0.4055
11.166
0.1880
22.008
0.1041
43.133
0.7510
1.973
0.8343
3.645
0.8461
7.005
0.2536
2.875
0.2460
2.994
0.4866
3.144
NSGA-II
0.4020
814.270
0.2050
1004.854
0.1310
1207.876
0.7531
568.591
0.8081
537.841
0.8137
563.270
0.2596
1050.822
0.2662
553.071
0.5469
558.297
MOEA/D
0.4098
489.636
0.2230
1104.641
0.1534
2577.410
0.7579
61.224
0.8219
107.852
0.8317
140.504
0.2589
–
0.2729
–
0.5774
–
PFG-MOEA
0.4520
265.914
0.2810
765.435
0.2125
963.652
0.7465
13.927
0.8029
31.840
0.8117
58.505
0.2535
76.271
0.2587
74.336
0.5420
70.115
TABLE II: Performance averaged over the best-HV candidate of each of four independent runs on the three intra-family transfer tasks. The best available value in each column is shown in bold .
Expert
E2OC
HEMO
Setting
HV ↑
IGD ↓
HV ↑
IGD ↓
HV ↑
IGD ↓
Traveling Salesman Problems
Bi-TSP 20
0.5476
0.0579
0.6174
0.0081
0.6103
0.0093
Bi-TSP 50
0.3613
0.1330
0.4897
0.0437
0.4948
0.0215
Bi-TSP 100
0.2835
0.1021
0.3631
0.0367
0.3763
0.0214
Tri-TSP 20
0.3661
0.0660
0.4132
0.0206
0.4305
0.0160
TABLE III: NSGA-II results on TSP (averaged over 50 instances per size) and FJSP (ID: Mk15; OOD: Mk01–Mk14).
HV ↑
IGD ↓
Setting
PMOCO
HEMO -SEMO
PMOCO
HEMO -SEMO
Bi-TSP 20
0.6260
0.6269
0.005281
0.000781
Bi-TSP 50
0.6350
0.6348
0.006773
0.001295
Bi-TSP 100
0.6977
0.6853
0.004168
0.006003
Bi-TSP 150
0.6958
0.7142
0.020435
0.003545
Bi-TSP 200
0.7151
0.7276
0.019029
0.006109
TABLE IV: Solution-quality comparison with PMOCO without instance augmentation. Results are averaged over 50 instances per setting. The better value for each metric within each setting is shown in bold . Winning HEMO -SEMO values are additionally shaded in blue.
Fig. 3: Search dynamics and final heuristic fronts across four tasks. (a) Mean heuristic-front HV with ± std shading. (b) Aggregated final heuristic Pareto fronts obtained by nondominated filtering.
Bi-TSP20
Tri-TSP20
Variant
HV ↑
IGD ↓
HV ↑
IGD ↓
HEMO
0.9583
0.0046
0.9330
0.0084
w/o harness evolution
0.6133
0.0364
0.5754
0.0462
w/o discounted UCB
0.8766
0.0097
0.8318
0.0153
w/o global memory
0.7879
0.0122
0.7942
0.0168
w/o retrieved context
0.6842
0.0176
0.6366
0.0286
TABLE V: Ablation study of HEMO on Bi-TSP20 and Tri-TSP20, averaged over four independent runs. HV and IGD for each variant are computed from the aggregated non-dominated solution fronts of all heuristics in the final heuristic Pareto front.
Bi-CVRP
Model
Token (M) ↓
Cost ()\downarrow$
Wall-clock (h) ↓
HV ↑
IGD ↓
GPT-5-nano
49.00
7.46
44.54
0.6173
0.0082
GPT-4.1-nano
29.80
3.82
13.95
0.5832
0.0355
TABLE VI: Cost and performance of HEMO under different LLM backbones on Bi-CVRP and Bi-SPDP with N=20 . Performance is evaluated separately on 50 test instances for each task.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Problem
Size
Reference point r
Ideal point z
Bi-KP
50
(−5,−5)
(−30,−30)
100
(−20,−20)
(−50,−50)
200
(−30,−30)
(−75,−75)
Bi-MDKP
50
(−5,−5)
(−30,−30)
100
(−20,−20)
(−50,−50)
200
(−30,−30)
(−85,−85)
Appendix
TABLE VII: Reference points and ideal points for the MOCOP benchmarks.
Family
Problem
Objectives
Final test instances
Knapsack
Bi-KP
two collected profits
n∈{50,100,200}
Knapsack
Bi-MDKP
two collected profits
n∈{50,100,200}
Routing
Bi-CVRP
total distance; longest route
n∈{20,50,100}
Routing
Bi-SPDP
total distance; required vehicle capacity
n∈{20,50,100}
TSP
Bi-TSP
two tour lengths
n∈{20,50,100}
TSP
Tri-TSP
three tour lengths
n∈{20,50,100}
Appendix
TABLE VIII: Overview of the MOCOP benchmarks used in our experiments. Each synthetic problem size contains 50 fixed test instances. For FJSP, Mk15 is used during operator design for NSGA-II, while all 15 Brandimarte instances are used for final evaluation.
Problem
Design init.
Design steps
Test init.
Test steps
Bi-KP
100
2,000
100
10,000
Bi-MDKP
100
2,000
100
10,000
Bi-CVRP
100
2,000
100
10,000
Bi-SPDP
100
2,000
100
20,000
Bi-TSP
100
2,000
100
20,000
Tri-TSP
100
2,000
100
20,000
Appendix
TABLE IX: SEMO initialization and iteration budgets. “Design” denotes evaluation of candidates during harness self-evolution and inference of HEMO , whereas “test” denotes final evaluation of the selected candidates.
Task
Chromosome representation
Design targets in execution order
Bi-TSP
City permutation
tsp_oropt → tsp_2opt → tsp_3opt
Tri-TSP
City permutation
tsp_oropt → tsp_2opt → tsp_3opt
Bi-CVRP
Customer permutation (giant tour)
vrp_oropt → vrp_swap → vrp_2opt
Bi-SPDP
Signed node permutation
vrp_oropt → vrp_swap → vrp_2opt
Bi-KP
Binary item-selection vector
kp_bitflip → kp_crossover → kp_repair_mutation
Bi-MDKP
Binary item-selection vector
kp_bitflip → kp_crossover → kp_repair_mutation
Appendix
TABLE X: NSGA-II operator design targets and default execution order across the eight tasks. Every named operator is a design target. Arrows indicate sequential calls on the offspring population, not alternative operator choices.
Operator name
Operation and design scope
tsp_oropt
Relocate a contiguous tour segment by selecting its length, original location, and reinsertion position while preserving the order of nodes within the segment. The reference operator moves one to three consecutive nodes.
tsp_2opt
Reverse a contiguous tour segment to change its boundary connections and internal traversal direction. The design controls segment selection and reordering while preserving a valid city permutation.
tsp_3opt
Modify multiple tour segments through cut selection and reconnection. The reference operator reverses two segments defined by three cuts.
vrp_oropt
Relocate a contiguous customer or node segment, choosing which segment to move and where to insert it. The reference operators move one to three nodes.
vrp_swap
Exchange two customer or node positions to modify visit order while preserving node identifiers. The seed operator uses route-quality sampling for CVRP and swaps signed entries for SPDP.
vrp_2opt
Reverse a contiguous segment to modify route ordering and neighboring connections. The seed operator acts within one capacity-decoded route for CVRP and on the signed node permutation for SPDP.
Appendix
TABLE XI: Operator interfaces and their intended roles. Descriptions summarize the operation and its design scope, and task-specific feasibility safeguards are described below.
Problem
Evolution pop.
Evolution gen.
Test pop.
Test gen.
Bi-KP
50
15
200
200
Bi-MDKP
50
15
200
200
Bi-CVRP
30
15
200
100
Bi-SPDP
50
15
200
200
Bi-TSP
50
15
200
200
Tri-TSP
50
15
200
100
Appendix
TABLE XII: NSGA-II population sizes and generation budgets. “Evolution” denotes candidate evaluation during harness self-evolution. Inference with the selected harness doubles both evolution budgets, whereas “test” denotes final evaluation of the selected operator combinations.
Role
Memory field
Meaning and type
Retrieval scope
task_id
Task associated with the record ( str ), used to restrict retrieval to the current task or related scope.
family , representation
Problem family and solution representation ( Optional[str] ), used for matching related search experience.
objective_dims
Objective dimensionalities represented by the record ( List[str] , List[int] ).
timestamp
Record creation time ( float ), providing a weak recency preference during retrieval.
Evaluation context
score
Observed candidate score vector ( Any , normally a numeric list), typically containing negative HV and per-instance runtime.
valid , error
Evaluation validity and failure information ( Optional[bool] , Optional[str] ).
Appendix
TABLE XIII: Memory fields most relevant to experience retrieval and subsequent search decisions.
SEMO
NSGA-II
Family
Task
Design size
Instances
Design size
Instances
TSP
Bi-TSP
20 cities
10
20 cities
10
Tri-TSP
20 cities
10
20 cities
10
Routing
Bi-CVRP
50 customers
10
50 customers
10
Bi-SPDP
20 nodes incl. depot
20
20 nodes incl. depot
20
Knapsack
Bi-KP
50 items
10
50 items
10
Appendix
TABLE XIV: Problem sizes and numbers of instances used for heuristic or operator design.
N=20
N=50
N=100
Overall
Method
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
Mean HV ↑
Speedup ↑
NSGA-II + 2-opt
0.6241
257.486
0.4607
249.499
0.3549
251.704
0.4799
1.531 ×
NSGA-II + 3-opt
0.6152
260.655
0.4607
253.314
0.3549
249.597
0.4769
1.521 ×
NSGA-II + Or-opt
0.6150
266.671
0.3647
262.096
0.2832
272.126
0.4210
1.450 ×
NSGA-II + 2opt-3opt-oropt
0.5469
257.407
0.3612
252.412
0.2836
244.447
0.3972
1.540 ×
NSGA-II + 3opt-2opt-oropt
0.5474
175.315
0.3605
166.707
0.2782
205.978
0.3954
2.120 ×
Appendix
TABLE XV: Comparison of HEMO-NSGA-II with expert-designed TSP operators and operator combinations. HV and runtime are reported for 50 test instances at each problem size. Mean HV averages the three problem sizes. Speedup is computed from the mean runtime across the three sizes, using the slowest method as 1× . Best values in each column are shown in bold .
Bi-FJSP
Tri-FJSP
ID
OOD
All
ID
OOD
All
Method
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
HV ↑
Time ↓
SEMO
0.7430
1.482
0.7789
14.672
0.7610
8.077
0.5434
5.014
0.3210
12.117
0.4322
8.566
NSGA-II
0.7166
1339.077
0.5915
1295.714
0.6540
1317.396
0.3066
1293.551
0.1784
1183.967
0.2425
1238.759
MOEA/D
0.8738
–
0.7801
–
0.8269
–
0.5516
–
0.3293
–
0.4404
–
PFG-MOEA
0.8565
287.431
0.7535
401.254
0.8050
344.343
0.5447
589.162
0.3218
879.100
0.4333
734.131
Appendix
TABLE XVI: Additional FJSP results with the SEMO backbone. ID comprises 15 synthetic instances and OOD comprises 15 Brandimarte instances. Time is in seconds per instance. Best displayed values are shown in bold , including ties, and “–” denotes runs exceeding the time limit.
Expert
E2OC
HEMO
Setting
HV ↑
IGD ↓
Time ↓
HV ↑
IGD ↓
Time ↓
HV ↑
IGD ↓
Time ↓
Bi-CVRP 20
0.6001
0.011265
173.681
0.5953
0.012716
139.499
0.6011
0.011267
119.408
Bi-CVRP 50
0.5232
0.031433
243.641
0.5179
0.039418
279.866
0.5467
0.012060
292.293
Bi-CVRP 100
0.4579
0.095994
235.605
0.5138
0.043941
1651.226
0.5457
0.014028
1361.897
Bi-SPDP 20
0.7447
0.036631
154.625
0.7671
0.012824
158.575
0.7670
0.011057
162.802
Bi-SPDP 50
0.7951
0.041620
165.747
0.8185
0.020679
163.603
0.8268
0.015460
167.782
Appendix
TABLE XVII: Additional NSGA-II-based results, averaged over 50 test instances per setting. Time is in seconds per instance. Best displayed values are shown in bold and HEMO columns are shaded.
Fig. 4: Final solution archives of HEMO -SEMO and expert-designed baselines across 50 test instances per setting. Rows correspond to Bi-KP, Bi-MDKP, Bi-TSP, and Tri-TSP. Columns correspond to increasing problem sizes. Knapsack objectives are shown as positive profits (higher is better), and TSP objectives as distances (lower is better). All saved final archive points are retained.
Fig. 5: Final solution archives of operator combinations designed by HEMO and expert-designed operator combinations under NSGA-II, using matched population and generation budgets. Each panel includes 50 test instances. Rows correspond to Bi-KP, Bi-MDKP, Bi-TSP, and Tri-TSP. Columns correspond to increasing problem sizes. Knapsack profits are divided by the total available profit of the corresponding objective (higher is better). TSP objectives are distances (lower is better). All saved final archive points are retained.
Large Language Models have recently emerged as a promising paradigm for automated heuristic design for NP-hard combinatorial optimization problems. Despite this progress, existing LLM-based methods typically rely on monolithic workflows constrained by rigid templates, thereby restricting memory-guided exploration and triggering premature convergence to local optima. To design an autonomous and collaborative architecture, we introduce HMACE, a Heterogeneous Multi-Agent Collaborative Evolution framework that reconceptualizes heuristic search as an organizational design problem. HMACE decomposes each evolutionary generation into an autonomous, role-specialized loop with four coordinated agents: a Proposer for strategy exploration, a Generator for executable heuristic synthesis, an Evaluator for empirical assessment, and a Reflector for archive-backed memory update. By coupling behavior-aware retrieval, lightweight candidate filtering, and fitness-grounded archive updates, HMACE guides the search toward diverse and promising heuristic behaviors while avoiding redundant evaluations. Extensive evaluations on representative COPs, including TSP, Online BPP, MKP, and PFSP, show that HMACE achieves a favorable quality-efficiency trade-off compared to state-of-the-art single-agent and multi-agent baselines. In the matched LLM-driven reference comparison, HMACE achieves the lowest average gaps on TSP and Online BPP (0.464% and 0.223%, respectively), while requiring only 0.13M and 0.42M tokens for the two tasks, substantially fewer than the compared baselines.
Automatic Heuristic Design (AHD) has emerged as a transformative approach for solving combinatorial optimization problems. While recent Large Language Model (LLM)-based methods have shown promise, they predominantly rely on fixed evolutionary operators and struggle to effectively accumulate and reuse historical search experience. This paper proposes RefineEvo, a novel evolutionary framework that transforms AHD from a static trial-and-error process into a planning-guided, experience-driven system. RefineEvo introduces a Planner to dynamically schedule evolutionary operators and trigger refinement based on the current search state, and a Reflector to distill valuable lessons into a Bidirectional Experience Pool containing both positive insights and negative pitfalls. This synergistic framework enables the system to adapt its search tools to the evolving complexity of the problem and leverage trajectory-aware, situation-conditioned insights to guide generation. Experiments on several classic combinatorial optimization benchmarks demonstrate that RefineEvo consistently outperforms strong baselines. In particular, RefineEvo delivers superior solution quality while improving token efficiency, enabling more efficient and autonomous heuristic design.
Yang Wu, Junran Pan, Yifan Zhang +3
C2DL, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing +1
While Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently shown promise in Automated Heuristic Design (AHD), existing methods typically generate and evolve heuristics as a single operator or search strategy, limiting their ability to model strong coupling among multiple decision substructures in problems such as the Traveling Thief Problem (TTP) and the Traveling Purchaser Problem (TPP). In this work, we propose CoEvo-AHD, an LLM-driven dual-population co-evolutionary framework for automated heuristic design in coupled combinatorial optimization. Unlike prior methods that evolve individual heuristics in isolation, CoEvo-AHD leverages LLMs to co-evolve two closely related operator populations. A cooperative evaluation mechanism explicitly captures interactions between route and selection operators, while pairwise scoring and synergistic joint crossover help discover complementary operator logic for joint improvement across coupled decision subspaces. We further design a tool-invocation environment library that encapsulates frequently used core operations, such as local-search delta computation, into callable functions, enabling LLM-generated operators to use standardized interfaces instead of reimplementing inefficient and error-prone problem-specific loops. Experiments on TTP and TPP show that CoEvo-AHD automatically discovers cooperative heuristic combinations and achieves competitive solution quality against traditional heuristics.
Mingen Kuang, Xudong Deng, Xi Lin +3
Xi’an Jiao Tong University · Northwestern Polytechnical University