mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

How the Move Acceptance Hyper-Heuristic Copes With Local Optima: Drastic Differences Between Jumps and Cliffs

arXiv 2304.10414 ↗First posted 20 Apr 2023cs.NE cs.AI cs.DScited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In recent work, Lissovoi, Oliveto, and Warwicker (Artificial Intelligence (2023)) proved that the Move Acceptance Hyper-Heuristic (MAHH) leaves the local optimum of the multimodal cliff benchmark with remarkable efficiency. With its O(n3) runtime, for almost all cliff widths d, the MAHH massively outperforms the Theta(nd) runtime of simple elitist evolutionary algorithms (EAs). For the most prominent multimodal benchmark, the jump functions, the given runtime estimates of O(n2m m-Theta(m)) and Omega(2Omega(m)), for gap size m ≥ 2, are far apart and the real performance of MAHH is still an open question. In this work, we resolve this question. We prove that for any choice of the MAHH selection parameter~p, the expected runtime of the MAHH on a jump function with gap size m = o(n1/2) is at least Omega(n2m-1 / (2m-1)!). This renders the MAHH much slower than simple elitist evolutionary algorithms with their typical O(nm) runtime. We also show that the MAHH with the global bit-wise mutation operator instead of the local one-bit operator optimizes jump functions in time O(minm nm,fracn2m-1m!Omega(m)m-2), essentially the minimum of the optimization times of the (1+1) EA and the MAHH. This suggests that combining several ways to cope with local optima can be a fruitful approach.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 61 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Apr 2023.

Builds on

19 of 61 references.

References · 19

  1. 2017Fast Genetic Algorithmscited by 29
  2. 2020Does Comma Selection Help To Cope With Local Optimacited by 15
  3. 2020Self-Adjusting Evolutionary Algorithms for Multimodal Optimizationcited by 15
  4. 2022A First Runtime Analysis of the NSGA-II on a Multimodal Problemcited by 15
  5. 2022Runtime Analysis for the NSGA-II: Provable Speed-Ups From Crossovercited by 14
  6. 2019The Runtime of the Compact Genetic Algorithm on Jump Functionscited by 13
  7. 2022From Understanding the Population Dynamics of the NSGA-II to the First Proven Lower Boundscited by 13
  8. 2021Stagnation Detection with Randomized Local Searchcited by 11
  9. 2021Lazy Parameter Tuning and Control: Choosing All Parameters Randomly From a Power-Law Distributioncited by 11
  10. 2020Runtime Analysis of a Heavy-Tailed (1+(λ,λ)) Genetic Algorithm on Jump Functionscited by 10
  11. 2018Theory of Parameter Control for Discrete Black-Box Optimization: Provable Performance Gains Through Dynamic Parameter Choicescited by 9
  12. 2020A Rigorous Runtime Analysis of the (1 + (λ, λ)) GA on Jump Functionscited by 8
7 more
  1. 2021Stagnation Detection in Highly Multimodal Fitness Landscapescited by 8
  2. 2022Stagnation Detection Meets Fast Mutationcited by 8
  3. 2015First Steps Towards a Runtime Comparison of Natural and Artificial Evolutioncited by 6
  4. 2018When Hypermutations and Ageing Enable Artificial Immune Systems to Outperform Evolutionary Algorithmscited by 5
  5. 2023Comma Selection Outperforms Plus Selection on OneMax with Randomly Planted Optimacited by 5
  6. 2022The Compact Genetic Algorithm Struggles on Cliff Functionscited by 2
  7. 2023Lasting Diversity and Superior Runtime Guarantees for the (μ+1) Genetic Algorithmcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

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

5 papers.