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/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Population diversity is essential for the effective use of any crossover operator. We compare seven commonly used diversity mechanisms and prove rigorous run time bounds for the (μ+1) GA using uniform crossover on the fitness function Jumpk. All previous results in this context only hold for unrealistically low crossover probability pc=O(k/n), while we give analyses for the setting of constant pc k, the population size μ, and the crossover probability pc. For the typical case of constant k > 2 and constant pc, we can compare the resulting expected optimisation times for different diversity mechanisms assuming an optimal choice of μ: O}(nk-1) for duplicate elimination/minimisation, O}(n2 log n) for maximising the convex hull, O(n log n) for det. crowding (assuming pc = k/n), O(n log n) for maximising the Hamming distance, O(n log n) for fitness sharing, O(n log n) for the single-receiver island model. This proves a sizeable advantage of all variants of the (μ+1) GA compared to the (1+1) EA, which requires θ(nk). In a short empirical study we confirm that the asymptotic differences can also be observed experimentally.

Escaping Local Optima with Diversity Mechanisms and Crossover