Lazy Parameter Tuning and Control: Choosing All Parameters Randomly From a Power-Law Distribution
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Most evolutionary algorithms have multiple parameters and their values drastically affect the performance. Due to the often complicated interplay of the parameters, setting these values right for a particular problem (parameter tuning) is a challenging task. This task becomes even more complicated when the optimal parameter values change significantly during the run of the algorithm since then a dynamic parameter choice (parameter control) is necessary. In this work, we propose a lazy but effective solution, namely choosing all parameter values (where this makes sense) in each iteration randomly from a suitably scaled power-law distribution. To demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach, we perform runtime analyses of the (1+(λ,λ)) genetic algorithm with all three parameters chosen in this manner. We show that this algorithm on the one hand can imitate simple hill-climbers like the (1+1) EA, giving the same asymptotic runtime on problems like OneMax, LeadingOnes, or Minimum Spanning Tree. On the other hand, this algorithm is also very efficient on jump functions, where the best static parameters are very different from those necessary to optimize simple problems. We prove a performance guarantee that is comparable to the best performance known for static parameters. For the most interesting case that the jump size k is constant, we prove that our performance is asymptotically better than what can be obtained with any static parameter choice. We complement our theoretical results with a rigorous empirical study confirming what the asymptotic runtime results suggest.
Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Apr 2021.
Builds on
19 of 57 references.
References · 19
- 2017Fast Genetic Algorithmscited by 29
- 2018Probabilistic Tools for the Analysis of Randomized Optimization Heuristicscited by 24
- 2020Does Comma Selection Help To Cope With Local Optimacited by 15
- 2020Self-Adjusting Evolutionary Algorithms for Multimodal Optimizationcited by 15
- 2019The Runtime of the Compact Genetic Algorithm on Jump Functionscited by 13
- 2021Stagnation Detection with Randomized Local Searchcited by 11
- 2020Runtime Analysis of a Heavy-Tailed (1+(λ,λ)) Genetic Algorithm on Jump Functionscited by 10
- 2020Fixed-Target Runtime Analysiscited by 9
- 2020First Steps Towards a Runtime Analysis When Starting With a Good Solutioncited by 9
- 2018A Tight Runtime Analysis for the (μ + λ) EAcited by 8
- 2020A Rigorous Runtime Analysis of the (1 + (λ, λ)) GA on Jump Functionscited by 8
- 2021Stagnation Detection in Highly Multimodal Fitness Landscapescited by 8
7 more
- 2017Runtime Analysis of the (1+(λ,λ)) Genetic Algorithm on Random Satisfiable 3-CNF Formulascited by 7
- 2018Evolutionary Algorithms and Submodular Functions: Benefits of Heavy-Tailed Mutationscited by 6
- 2018Runtime Analysis for Self-adaptive Mutation Ratescited by 4
- 2018Artificial Immune Systems Can Find Arbitrarily Good Approximations for the NP-Hard Number Partitioning Problemcited by 3
- 2019A Tight Runtime Analysis for the cGA on Jump Functions---EDAs Can Cross Fitness Valleys at No Extra Costcited by 3
- 2015Solving Problems with Unknown Solution Length at (Almost) No Extra Costcited by 2
- 2016Optimal Parameter Settings for the (1+(λ, λ)) Genetic Algorithmcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 5; 2023: 2; 2024: 0; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
11 papers.
- 2022A First Runtime Analysis of the NSGA-II on a Multimodal Problemcited by 15
- 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
- 2022The (1+(λ,λ)) Global SEMO Algorithmcited by 3
- 2022Approximation Guarantees for the Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II)cited by 2
- 2022Towards a Stronger Theory for Permutation-based Evolutionary Algorithmscited by 2
- 2025Multi-parameter Control for the (1+(λ,λ))-GA on OneMax via Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 1
- 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
- 2026Discovering Interpretable Multi-Parameter Control Policies for Evolutionary Algorithms Using Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 0
- 2026Discovering Interpretable Multi-Parameter Control Policies for Evolutionary Algorithms Using Deep Reinforcement Learning8 Jun 2026
- 2025Multi-parameter Control for the (1+(λ,λ))-GA on OneMax via Deep Reinforcement Learning19 May 2025
- 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
- 2022The (1+(λ,λ)) Global SEMO Algorithm7 Oct 2022
- 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
- 2022Approximation Guarantees for the Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II)5 Mar 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