mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Lazy Parameter Tuning and Control: Choosing All Parameters Randomly From a Power-Law Distribution

arXiv 2104.06714 ↗First posted 14 Apr 2021cs.NE cs.AIcited by 11

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

  1. 2017Fast Genetic Algorithmscited by 29
  2. 2018Probabilistic Tools for the Analysis of Randomized Optimization Heuristicscited by 24
  3. 2020Does Comma Selection Help To Cope With Local Optimacited by 15
  4. 2020Self-Adjusting Evolutionary Algorithms for Multimodal Optimizationcited by 15
  5. 2019The Runtime of the Compact Genetic Algorithm on Jump Functionscited by 13
  6. 2021Stagnation Detection with Randomized Local Searchcited by 11
  7. 2020Runtime Analysis of a Heavy-Tailed (1+(λ,λ)) Genetic Algorithm on Jump Functionscited by 10
  8. 2020Fixed-Target Runtime Analysiscited by 9
  9. 2020First Steps Towards a Runtime Analysis When Starting With a Good Solutioncited by 9
  10. 2018A Tight Runtime Analysis for the (μ + λ) EAcited by 8
  11. 2020A Rigorous Runtime Analysis of the (1 + (λ, λ)) GA on Jump Functionscited by 8
  12. 2021Stagnation Detection in Highly Multimodal Fitness Landscapescited by 8
7 more
  1. 2017Runtime Analysis of the (1+(λ,λ)) Genetic Algorithm on Random Satisfiable 3-CNF Formulascited by 7
  2. 2018Evolutionary Algorithms and Submodular Functions: Benefits of Heavy-Tailed Mutationscited by 6
  3. 2018Runtime Analysis for Self-adaptive Mutation Ratescited by 4
  4. 2018Artificial Immune Systems Can Find Arbitrarily Good Approximations for the NP-Hard Number Partitioning Problemcited by 3
  5. 2019A Tight Runtime Analysis for the cGA on Jump Functions---EDAs Can Cross Fitness Valleys at No Extra Costcited by 3
  6. 2015Solving Problems with Unknown Solution Length at (Almost) No Extra Costcited by 2
  7. 2016Optimal Parameter Settings for the (1+(λ, λ)) Genetic Algorithmcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 5; 2023: 2; 2024: 0; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.

11 papers.