Sequential selection was introduced for Evolution Strategies (ESs) with the aim of accelerating their convergence--performing the evaluations of the different offspring sequentially and concluding an iteration immediately if one offspring is better than the parent. This paper investigates the impact of the application of sequential selection to the (1,2)-CMA-ES on the BBOB-2010 noisy benchmark testbed. The performance of the (1,2s)-CMA-ES, where sequential selection is implemented, is compared to the baseline algorithm (1,2)-CMA-ES. Independent restarts for the two algorithms are conducted up to a maximum number of 104 D function evaluations, where D is the dimension of the search space.
The results show a slight improvement of the (1,2s)-CMA-ES over the baseline (1,2)-CMA-ES on the sphere function with Cauchy noise and a stronger decline on the sphere function with moderate uniform noise. Overall, the (1,2s)-CMA-ES seems slighly less reliable and we conclude that for the (1,2)-CMA-ES, sequential selection is no improvement on noisy functions.
[1]
Anne Auger,et al.
Investigating the impact of sequential selection in the (1,2)-CMA-ES on the noiseless BBOB-2010 testbed
,
2010,
GECCO '10.
[2]
Anne Auger,et al.
Mirrored Sampling and Sequential Selection for Evolution Strategies
,
2010,
PPSN.
[3]
N. Hansen,et al.
Real-Parameter Black-Box Optimization Benchmarking: Experimental Setup
,
2010
.
[4]
Anne Auger,et al.
Real-Parameter Black-Box Optimization Benchmarking 2009: Noiseless Functions Definitions
,
2009
.
[5]
K. Price.
Differential evolution vs. the functions of the 2/sup nd/ ICEO
,
1997,
Proceedings of 1997 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation (ICEC '97).