Mirrored Sampling and Sequential Selection for Evolution Strategies
This paper reveals the surprising result that a single-parent non-elitist evolution strategy (ES) can be locally faster than the (1+1)-ES. The result is brought about by mirrored sampling and sequential selection. With mirrored sampling, two offspring are generated symmetrically or mirrored with respect to their parent. In sequential selection, the offspring are evaluated sequentially and the iteration is concluded as soon as one offspring is better than the current parent. Both concepts complement each other well. We derive exact convergence rates of the (1,λ)-ES with mirrored sampling and/or sequential selection on the sphere model. The log-linear convergence of the ES is preserved. Both methods lead to an improvement and in combination the (1,4)-ES becomes about 10% faster than the (1+1)-ES. Naively implemented into the CMA-ES with recombination, mirrored sampling leads to a bias on the step-size. However, the (1,4)-CMA-ES with mirrored sampling and sequential selection is unbiased and appears to be faster, more robust, and as local as the (1+1)-CMA-ES.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Arnold, D.V., Van Wart, D.C.S.: Cumulative step length adaptation for evolution strategies using negative recombination weights. In: Giacobini, M., Brabazon, A., Cagnoni, S., Di Caro, G.A., Drechsler, R., Ekárt, A., Esparcia-Alcázar, A.I., Farooq, M., Fink, A., McCormack, J., O’Neill, M., Romero, J., Rothlauf, F., Squillero, G., Uyar, A.Ş., Yang, S. (eds.) EvoWorkshops 2008. LNCS, vol. 4974, pp. 545–554. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Auger, A., Brockhoff, D., Hansen, N.: Mirrored sampling and sequential selection for evolution strategies. Research Report RR-7249, INRIA Saclay—Île-de-France (June 2010)Google Scholar
- 5.Auger, A., Hansen, N.: Benchmarking the (1+1)-CMA-ES on the BBOB-2009 noisy testbed. In: Rothlauf, F., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO 2009), Companion Material, pp. 2467–2472. ACM Press, New York (2009)Google Scholar
- 7.Hansen, N.: The CMA evolution strategy: a comparing review. In: Lozano, J., Larranaga, P., Inza, I., Bengoetxea, E. (eds.) Towards a New Evolutionary Computation. Advances on Estimation of Distribution Algorithms, pp. 75–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
- 8.Hansen, N., Finck, S., Ros, R., Auger, A.: Real-parameter black-box optimization benchmarking 2009: Noiseless functions definitions. Tech. Rep. RR-6829, INRIA (2009), http://coco.gforge.inria.fr/bbob2010-downloads (updated February 2010)
- 9.Hansen, N., Finck, S., Ros, R., Auger, A.: Real-parameter black-box optimization benchmarking 2009: Noisy functions definitions. Tech. Rep. RR-6869, INRIA (2009), http://coco.gforge.inria.fr/bbob2010-downloads (updated February 2010)
- 11.Teytaud, O., Gelly, S., Mary, J.: On the ultimate convergence rates for isotropic algorithms and the best choices among various forms of isotropy. In: Runarsson, T.P., Beyer, H.-G., Burke, E.K., Merelo-Guervós, J.J., Whitley, L.D., Yao, X. (eds.) PPSN 2006. LNCS, vol. 4193, pp. 32–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar