ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Benchmarking a BI-population CMA-ES on the BBOB-2009 noisy testbed
Full text PdfPdf (832 KB)
Source
Genetic And Evolutionary Computation Conference archive
Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference Companion on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference: Late Breaking Papers table of contents
Montreal, Québec, Canada
WORKSHOP SESSION: Black box optimization benchmarking (BBOB) table of contents
Pages 2397-2402  
Year of Publication: 2009
ISBN:978-1-60558-505-5
Author
Nikolaus Hansen  INRIA Saclay, Orsay, France
Sponsors
SIGEVO: ACM Special Interest Group on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 3,   Downloads (12 Months): 19,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1570256.1570334
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

We benchmark the BI-population CMA-ES on the BBOB-2009 noisy functions testbed. BI-population refers to a multistart strategy with equal budgets for two interlaced restart strategies, one with an increasing population size and one with varying small population sizes. The latter is presumably of little use on a noisy testbed. The BI-population CMA-ES could solve 29, 27 and 26 out of 30 functions in search space dimension 5, 10 and 20 respectively. The time to find the solution ranges between 100 D and 105 D2 objective function evaluations, where D is the search space dimension.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
S. Finck, N. Hansen, R. Ros, and A. Auger. Real-parameter black-box optimization benchmarking 2009: Presentation of the noisy functions. Technical Report 2009/21, Research Center PPE, 2009.
 
2
N. Hansen. The CMA evolution strategy: a comparing review. In J. Lozano, P. Larranaga, I. Inza, and E. Bengoetxea, editors, Towards a new evolutionary computation. Advances on estimation of distribution algorithms, pages 75--102. Springer, 2006.
3
 
4
N. Hansen, A. Auger, S. Finck, and R. Ros. Real-parameter black-box optimization benchmarking 2009: Experimental setup. Technical Report RR-6828, INRIA, 2009.
 
5
N. Hansen, S. Finck, R. Ros, and A. Auger. Real-parameter black-box optimization benchmarking 2009: Noisy functions definitions. Technical Report RR-6869, INRIA, 2009.
 
6
N. Hansen and S. Kern. Evaluating the CMA evolution strategy on multimodal test functions. In X. Yao et al., editors, Parallel Problem Solving from Nature - PPSN VIII, LNCS 3242, pages 282--291. Springer, 2004.
 
7
N. Hansen, A. Niederberger, L. Guzzella, and P. Koumoutsakos. A method for handling uncertainty in evolutionary optimization with an application to feedback control of combustion. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 13(1):180--197, 2009.