Completely Derandomized Self-Adaptation in Evolution Strategies
Evolutionary Computation
A computational efficient covariance matrix update and a (1+1)-CMA for evolution strategies
Proceedings of the 8th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation
Proceedings of the 11th Annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation
Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
Benchmarking a BI-population CMA-ES on the BBOB-2009 function testbed
Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference Companion on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference: Late Breaking Papers
Benchmarking the (1+1)-CMA-ES on the BBOB-2009 function testbed
Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference Companion on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference: Late Breaking Papers
Benchmarking the (1+1)-CMA-ES on the BBOB-2009 noisy testbed
Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference Companion on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference: Late Breaking Papers
Comparing results of 31 algorithms from the black-box optimization benchmarking BBOB-2009
Proceedings of the 12th annual conference companion on Genetic and evolutionary computation
Analyzing the impact of mirrored sampling and sequential selection in elitist evolution strategies
Proceedings of the 11th workshop proceedings on Foundations of genetic algorithms
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
In this paper, we compare the (1+1)-CMA-ES to the (1+2sm)-CMA-ES, a recently introduced quasi-random (1+2)-CMA-ES that uses mirroring as derandomization technique as well as a sequential selection. Both algorithms were tested using independent restarts till a total number of function evaluations of $10^{4} D$ was reached, where $D$ is the dimension of the search space. On the non-separable ellipsoid function in dimension 10, 20 and 40, the performances of the (1+2sm)-CMA-ES are better by 17% than the best performance among algorithms tested during BBOB-2009 (for target values of 10-5 and 10-7). Moreover, the comparison shows that the (1+2sm)-CMA-ES variant improves the performance of the (1+1)-CMA-ES by about 20% on the ellipsoid, the discus, and the sum of different powers functions and by 12% on the sphere function. Besides, we never observe statistically significant results where the (1+2sm)-CMA-ES is worse than the (1+1)-CMA-ES.