Runtime Analysis of a Heavy-Tailed (1+(λ,λ)) Genetic Algorithm on Jump Functions
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
It was recently observed that the (1+(λ,λ)) genetic algorithm can comparably easily escape the local optimum of the jump functions benchmark. Consequently, this algorithm can optimize the jump function with jump size k in an expected runtime of only n(k + 1)/2k-k/2eO(k) fitness evaluations (Antipov, Doerr, Karavaev (GECCO 2020)). To obtain this performance, however, a non-standard parameter setting depending on the jump size k was used. To overcome this difficulty, we propose to choose two parameters of the (1+(λ,λ)) genetic algorithm randomly from a power-law distribution. Via a mathematical runtime analysis, we show that this algorithm with natural instance-independent choices of the distribution parameters on all jump functions with jump size at most n/4 has a performance close to what the best instance-specific parameters in the previous work obtained. This price for instance-independence can be made as small as an O(nlog(n)) factor. Given the difficulty of the jump problem and the runtime losses from using mildly suboptimal fixed parameters (also discussed in this work), this appears to be a fair price.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 5 Jun 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 4; 2022: 3; 2023: 2; 2024: 1.
10 papers.
- 2022A First Runtime Analysis of the NSGA-II on a Multimodal Problemcited by 15
- 2021Lazy Parameter Tuning and Control: Choosing All Parameters Randomly From a Power-Law Distributioncited by 11
- 2021Lower Bounds from Fitness Levels Made Easycited by 5
- 2021Choosing the Right Algorithm With Hints From Complexity Theorycited by 5
- 2023How the Move Acceptance Hyper-Heuristic Copes With Local Optima: Drastic Differences Between Jumps and Cliffscited by 4
- 2021An Extended Jump Functions Benchmark for the Analysis of Randomized Search Heuristicscited by 3
- 2022Towards a Stronger Theory for Permutation-based Evolutionary Algorithmscited by 2
- 2024Hyper-Heuristics Can Profit From Global Variation Operatorscited by 2
- 2022Runtime Analysis for Permutation-based Evolutionary Algorithmscited by 0
- 2023Larger Offspring Populations Help the (1 + (λ, λ)) Genetic Algorithm to Overcome the Noisecited by 0
- 2024Hyper-Heuristics Can Profit From Global Variation Operators19 Jul 2024
- 2023Larger Offspring Populations Help the (1 + (λ, λ)) Genetic Algorithm to Overcome the Noise8 May 2023
- 2023How the Move Acceptance Hyper-Heuristic Copes With Local Optima: Drastic Differences Between Jumps and Cliffs20 Apr 2023
- 2022Runtime Analysis for Permutation-based Evolutionary Algorithms5 Jul 2022
- 2022A First Runtime Analysis of the NSGA-II on a Multimodal Problem28 Apr 2022
- 2022Towards a Stronger Theory for Permutation-based Evolutionary Algorithms15 Apr 2022
- 2021Choosing the Right Algorithm With Hints From Complexity Theory14 Sep 2021
- 2021An Extended Jump Functions Benchmark for the Analysis of Randomized Search Heuristics7 May 2021
- 2021Lazy Parameter Tuning and Control: Choosing All Parameters Randomly From a Power-Law Distribution14 Apr 2021
- 2021Lower Bounds from Fitness Levels Made Easy7 Apr 2021