Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
NARROW
Format
Journal
Date
Availability
1-2 of 2
Anna V. Kononova
Close
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Sort by
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Evolutionary Computation (2024) 32 (1): 3–48.
Published: 01 March 2024
FIGURES
| View All (13)
Abstract
View article
PDF
We argue that results produced by a heuristic optimisation algorithm cannot be considered reproducible unless the algorithm fully specifies what should be done with solutions generated outside the domain, even in the case of simple bound constraints. Currently, in the field of heuristic optimisation, such specification is rarely mentioned or investigated due to the assumed triviality or insignificance of this question. Here, we demonstrate that, at least in algorithms based on Differential Evolution, this choice induces notably different behaviours in terms of performance, disruptiveness, and population diversity. This is shown theoretically (where possible) for standard Differential Evolution in the absence of selection pressure and experimentally for the standard and state-of-the-art Differential Evolution variants, on a special test function and the BBOB benchmarking suite, respectively. Moreover, we demonstrate that the importance of this choice quickly grows with problem dimensionality. Differential Evolution is not at all special in this regard—there is no reason to presume that other heuristic optimisers are not equally affected by the aforementioned algorithmic choice. Thus, we urge the heuristic optimisation community to formalise and adopt the idea of a new algorithmic component in heuristic optimisers, which we refer to as the strategy of dealing with infeasible solutions. This component needs to be consistently: (a) specified in algorithmic descriptions to guarantee reproducibility of results, (b) studied to better understand its impact on an algorithm's performance in a wider sense (i.e., convergence time, robustness, etc.), and (c) included in the (automatic) design of algorithms. All of these should be done even for problems with bound constraints.
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Evolutionary Computation (2023) 31 (2): 81–122.
Published: 01 June 2023
Abstract
View article
PDF
Thirty years, 1993–2023, is a huge time frame in science. We address some major developments in the field of evolutionary algorithms, with applications in parameter optimization, over these 30 years. These include the covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy and some fast-growing fields such as multimodal optimization, surrogate-assisted optimization, multiobjective optimization, and automated algorithm design. Moreover, we also discuss particle swarm optimization and differential evolution, which did not exist 30 years ago, either. One of the key arguments made in the paper is that we need fewer algorithms, not more, which, however, is the current trend through continuously claiming paradigms from nature that are suggested to be useful as new optimization algorithms. Moreover, we argue that we need proper benchmarking procedures to sort out whether a newly proposed algorithm is useful or not. We also briefly discuss automated algorithm design approaches, including configurable algorithm design frameworks, as the proposed next step toward designing optimization algorithms automatically, rather than by hand.