Runtime Analysis of a Heavy-Tailed $(1+(λ,λ))$ Genetic Algorithm on Jump Functions

June 05, 2020 · Declared Dead · 🏛 Parallel Problem Solving from Nature

👻 CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Denis Antipov, Benjamin Doerr arXiv ID 2006.03523 Category cs.NE: Neural & Evolutionary Citations 36 Venue Parallel Problem Solving from Nature Last Checked 3 months ago
Abstract
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 $n^{(k + 1)/2}k^{-k/2}e^{O(k)}$ 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 $O(n\log(n))$ 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.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

📜 Similar Papers

In the same crypt — Neural & Evolutionary

🔮 🔮 The Ethereal

LSTM: A Search Space Odyssey

Klaus Greff, Rupesh Kumar Srivastava, ... (+3 more)

cs.NE 🏛 IEEE TNNLS 📚 6.0K cites 11 years ago

Died the same way — 👻 Ghosted