Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparison of Evolution Strategies with Other Direct Search Methods in the Presence of Noise

  • Published:
Computational Optimization and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Evolution strategies are general, nature-inspired heuristics for search and optimization. Due to their use of populations of candidate solutions and their advanced adaptation schemes, there is a common belief that evolution strategies are especially useful for optimization in the presence of noise. Empirical evidence as well as a number of theoretical findings with respect to the performance of evolution strategies on a class of spherical objective functions disturbed by Gaussian noise support that belief. However, little is known with respect to the capabilities in the presence of noise of evolution strategies relative to those of other direct optimization strategies.

In the present paper, theoretical results with respect to the performance of evolution strategies in the presence of Gaussian noise are summarized and discussed. Then, the performance of evolution strategies is compared empirically with that of several other direct optimizationstrategies in the noisy, spherical environment that the theoretical results have been obtained in. Due to the simplicity of that environment, the results are easily interpretable and can serve to reveal the respective strengths and weaknesses of the algorithms. It is seen that for low levels of noise, most of the strategies exhibit similar degrees of efficiency. For higher levels of noise, their step length adaptation scheme affords evolution strategies a greater degree of robustness than the other algorithms tested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. E.J. Anderson and M.C. Ferris, “A direct search algorithm for optimization with noisy function evaluations,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 837–857, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  2. B.C. Arnold, N. Balakrishnan, and H.N. Nagaraja, A First Course in Order Statistics,Wiley: New York, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  3. D.V. Arnold, Noisy Optimization with Evolution Strategies, Kluwer: Boston, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  4. D.V. Arnold and H.-G. Beyer, “Efficiency and self-adaptation of the (µ/µ I, ?)-ES in a noisy environment,” in Parallel Problem Solving from Nature—PPSN VI, M. Schoenauer et al. (Eds.), Springer: Berlin, 2000, pp. 39–48.

    Google Scholar 

  5. D.V. Arnold and H.-G. Beyer, “Local performance of the (µ/µ I, ?)-ES in a noisy environment,” in Foundations of Genetic Algorithms 6, W. Martin and W.M. Spears (Eds.), Morgan-Kaufmann: San Francisco, 2001, pp. 127–141.

    Google Scholar 

  6. D.V. Arnold and H.-G. Beyer, “Investigation of the (µ, ?)-ES in the presence of noise,” in Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2001, pp. 332–339.

  7. D.V. Arnold and H.-G. Beyer, “Local performance of the (1+1)-ES in a noisy environment,” IEEETransactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 30–41, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  8. D.V. Arnold and H.-G. Beyer, “Performance analysis of evolution strategies with multi-recombination in high-dimensional RN-search spaces disturbed by noise,” Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 289, no. 1, pp. 629–647, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  9. D.V. Arnold and H.-G. Beyer, “Evolutionary optimization with cumulative step length adaptation—A performance analysis,” Technical Report CI 137/02, SFB 531, University of Dortmund, 2002.

  10. T. Bäck, Evolutionary Algorithms in Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press: New York, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  11. T. Bäck, U. Hammel, and H.-P. Schwefel, “Evolutionary computation: Comments on the history and current state,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3–17, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  12. R.R. Barton and J.S. Ivey, “Nelder-Mead simplex modifications for simulation optimization,” Management Science, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 954–973, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  13. M. Bell and M.C. Pike, “Remark on Algorithm 178,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 9, pp. 684–685, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  14. H.-G. Beyer, “Toward a theory of evolution strategies: On the benefit of sex—the (µ/µ, ?) —theory,” Evolutionary Computation, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 81–111, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  15. H.-G. Beyer, “Toward a theory of evolution strategies: Self-adaptation,” Evolutionary Computation, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 311–347, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  16. H.-G. Beyer, “Evolutionary algorithms in noisy environments: Theoretical issues and guidelines for practice,” Computer Methods in Mechanics and Applied Engineering, vol. 186, pp. 239–267, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  17. H.-G. Beyer, The Theory of Evolution Strategies, Springer: Berlin, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  18. D.M. Bortz and C.T. Kelley, “The simplex gradient and noisy optimization problems,” in Computational Methods in Optimal Design and Control, J.T. Borggaard et al. (Eds.), Birkhäuser: Boston, 1998, pp. 77–90.

    Google Scholar 

  19. G.E.P. Box and K.B. Wilson, “On the experimental attainment of optimal conditions,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, vol. XIII, no. 1, pp. 1–45, 1951.

    Google Scholar 

  20. C. Elster and A. Neumaier, “A grid algorithm for bound constrained optimization of noisy functions,” IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, vol. 15, pp. 585–608, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  21. J.M. Fitzpatrick and J.J. Grefenstette, “Genetic algorithms in noisy environments,” Machine Learning, vol. 3, pp. 101–120, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  22. P. Gilmore and C.T. Kelley, “An implicit filtering algorithm for optimization of functions with many local minima,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 5, pp. 269–285, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  23. L.S. Gurin and L.A. Rastrigin, “Convergence of the random search method in the presence of noise,” ARC, vol. 26, pp. 1505–1511, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  24. N. Hansen, Verallgemeinerte individuelle Schrittweitenregelung in der Evolutionsstrategie, Mensch & Buch: Berlin, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  25. N. Hansen, “Invariance, self-adaptation and correlated mutations in evolution strategies,” in Parallel Problem Solving from Nature—PPSN VI, M. Schoenauer et al. (Eds.), Springer: Berlin, 2000, pp. 355–364.

    Google Scholar 

  26. N. Hansen and A. Ostermeier, “Completely derandomized self-adaptation in evolution strategies,” Evolutionary Computation, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 159–195, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  27. M. Herdy, “Reproductive isolation as strategy parameter in hierarchically organized evolution strategies,” in Parallel Problem Solving from Nature—PPSN II, R. Männer and B. Manderick (Eds.), Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1992, pp. 207–217.

    Google Scholar 

  28. W.D. Hillis, “Co-evolving parasites improve simulated evolution as an optimization procedure,” in Artificial Life II, C.G. Langton et al. (Eds.), Addison-Wesley: Redwood City, 1992, pp. 313–324.

    Google Scholar 

  29. R. Hooke and T.A. Jeeves, “‘Direct search’ solution of numerical and statistical problems,” Journal of the ACM, vol. 8, pp. 212–229, 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  30. D.G. Humphrey and J.R. Wilson, “A revised simplex search procedure for stochastic simulation response surface optimization,” INFORMS Journal on Computing, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 272–283, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  31. C.T. Kelley, “Detection and remediation of stagnation in the Nelder-Mead algorithm using a sufficient decrease condition,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 43–55, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  32. C.T. Kelley, Iterative Methods for Optimization, SIAM: Philadelphia, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  33. J. Kiefer and J. Wolfowitz, “Stochastic estimation of a regression function,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 23, pp. 462–466, 1952.

    Google Scholar 

  34. R.M. Lewis, V. Torczon, and M.W. Trosset, “Direct search methods: Then and now,” Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 124, pp. 191–207, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  35. K.I.M. McKinnon, “Convergence of the Nelder-Mead simplex method to a nonstationary point,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 148–158, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  36. B.L. Miller and D.E. Goldberg, “Genetic algorithms, selection schemes, and the varying effects of noise,” Evolutionary Computation, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 113–131, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  37. J.A. Nelder and R. Mead, “A simplex method for function minimization,” Computer Journal, vol. 7, pp. 308–313, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  38. V. Nissen and J. Propach, “On the robustness of population-based versus point-based optimization in the presence of noise,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 107–119, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  39. A.I. Oyman and H.-G. Beyer, “Analysis of the (µ/µ, ?)-ES on the parabolic ridge,” Evolutionary Computation, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 267–289, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  40. M.J.D. Powell, “Direct search algorithms for optimization calculations,” Acta Numerica, vol. 7, pp. 287–336, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  41. M. Rattray and J.L. Shapiro, “Noisy fitness evaluation in genetic algorithms and the dynamics of learning,” in Foundations of Genetic Algorithms 4, R.K. Belew and M.D. Vose (Eds.), Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo, 1997, pp. 117–139.

    Google Scholar 

  42. I. Rechenberg, Evolutionsstrategie: Optimierung technischer Systeme nach den Prinzipien der biologischen Evolution, Frommann-Holzboog: Stuttgart, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  43. I. Rechenberg, Evolutionsstrategie '94, Frommann-Holzboog: Stuttgart, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  44. H. Robbins and S. Monro, “A stochastic approximation method,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 29, pp. 400–407, 1951.

    Google Scholar 

  45. G. Rudolph, “Global optimization by means of distributed evolution strategies,” in Parallel Problem Solving from Nature—PPSN I, H.-P. Schwefel and R. Männer (Eds.), Springer: Berlin, 1990, pp. 209–213.

    Google Scholar 

  46. G. Rudolph, “On correlated mutations in evolution strategies,” in Parallel Problem Solving from Nature—PPSN II, R. Männer and B. Manderick (Eds.), Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1992, pp. 105–114.

    Google Scholar 

  47. G. Rudolph, Convergence Properties of Evolutionary Algorithms, Dr. Kovać: Hamburg, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  48. G. Rudolph, “Local convergence rates of simple evolutionary algorithms with Cauchy mutations,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 249–258, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  49. R. Salomon, “Evolutionary search and gradient search: Similarities and differences,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 45–55, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  50. H.-P. Schwefel, Numerische Optimierung von Computer-Modellen mittels der Evolutionsstrategie, Birkhäuser: Basel, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  51. H.-P. Schwefel, Evolution and Optimum Seeking, Wiley: New York, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  52. J.C. Spall, “Multivariate stochastic approximation using a simultaneous perturbation gradient approximation,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 37, pp. 332–341, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  53. J.C. Spall, “Adaptive stochastic approximation by the simultaneous perturbation method,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 1839–1853, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  54. J.C. Spall, S.D. Hill, and D.R. Stark, “Theoretical comparisons of evolutionary computation and other optimization approaches,” in Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 1998, pp. 1398–1405.

  55. W. Spendley, G.R. Hext, and F.R. Himsworth, “Sequential application of simplex designs in optimisation and evolutionary operation,” Technometrics, vol. 4, pp. 441–461, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  56. V.J. Torczon, “Multi-directional search: A direct search algorithm for parallel machines,” PhD Thesis, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Rice University, Houston, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  57. V. Torczon and M.W. Trosset, “From evolutionary operation to parallel direct search: Pattern search algorithms for numerical optimization,” Computing Science and Statistics, vol. 29, pp. 396–401, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  58. M.W. Trosset, “I know it when I see it: Toward a definition of direct search methods,” SIAG/OPT Views and News, vol. 9, pp. 7–10, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  59. M.H. Wright, “Direct search methods: Once scorned, now respectable,” in Numerical Analysis, D.F. Griffiths and G.A. Watson (Eds.), Addison Wesley: Redwood City, 1995, pp. 191–208.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science XI, University of Dortmund, 44221, Dortmund, Germany

    Dirk V. Arnold & Hans-Georg Beyer

Authors
  1. Dirk V. Arnold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hans-Georg Beyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Arnold, D.V., Beyer, HG. A Comparison of Evolution Strategies with Other Direct Search Methods in the Presence of Noise. Computational Optimization and Applications 24, 135–159 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021810301763

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021810301763

Search

Navigation