English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In this paper, we compare the (1+1)-CMA-ES to the (1+2sm)-CMA-ES, a recently introduced quasi-random (1+2)-CMA-ES that uses mirroring as derandomization technique as well as a sequential selection. Both algorithms were tested using independent restarts till a total number of function evaluations of $10^{4} D$ was reached, where $D$ is the dimension of the search space. On the non-separable ellipsoid function in dimension 10, 20 and 40, the performances of the (1+2sm)-CMA-ES are better by 17% than the best performance among algorithms tested during BBOB-2009 (for target values of 10-5 and 10-7). Moreover, the comparison shows that the (1+2sm)-CMA-ES variant improves the performance of the (1+1)-CMA-ES by about 20% on the ellipsoid, the discus, and the sum of different powers functions and by 12% on the sphere function. Besides, we never observe statistically significant results where the (1+2sm)-CMA-ES is worse than the (1+1)-CMA-ES.

Comparing the (1+1)-CMA-ES with a mirrored (1+2)-CMA-ES with sequential selection on the noiseless BBOB-2010 testbed