Limited Perfect Monotonical Surrogates constructed using low-cost recursive linkage discovery with guaranteed output

F. Chicano; M.M. Komarnicki; M.W. Przewozniczek; R. Tin\'os

arxiv: 2604.11524 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 💻 cs.AI · cs.DS

Limited Perfect Monotonical Surrogates constructed using low-cost recursive linkage discovery with guaranteed output

M.W. Przewozniczek , F. Chicano , R. Tin\'os , M.M. Komarnicki This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI cs.DS

keywords surrogate modelsoptimizationlinkage discoverylocal searchfitness evaluationnon-linear problemsparameterless modelsmonotonical representation

0 comments

The pith

A parameterless surrogate allows exact comparisons of solutions differing by one variable using only existing fitness evaluations.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes the Limited Monotonical Perfect Surrogate, or LyMPuS, to represent non-linear functions exactly when comparing any two solutions that differ in a single variable. This surrogate is constructed directly from fitness evaluations already performed, without parameters, a separate training phase, or wasted prior costs. It incorporates recursive linkage discovery that guarantees detection of any missing dependency in at most 2 ceiling of log base 2 of n steps. Such a model would reduce the expense of local search steps in computationally costly optimization by enabling reliable single-variable decisions without new function calls.

Core claim

The authors claim that limited perfect monotonical surrogates can be built for non-linear problems via low-cost recursive linkage discovery. This yields a correct alternative representation of the objective function that supports direct, exact comparisons between solutions differing by one variable, trains on the fly, reuses all prior evaluations, and includes guaranteed low-cost detection of missing linkages within 2⌈log₂(n)⌉ steps.

What carries the argument

The Limited Monotonical Perfect Surrogate (LyMPuS) that maintains an exact monotonical representation enabling single-variable solution comparisons derived solely from fitness evaluations.

If this is right

Local search procedures for expensive problems can be limited in additional cost because single-variable comparisons become exact without new evaluations.
The surrogate updates on the fly and reuses every prior fitness evaluation without waste.
Missing linkages are detected at low cost with a strict upper bound of 2⌈log₂(n)⌉ steps.
No separate surrogate-building step or parameter tuning is required at any point.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The approach could integrate into existing evolutionary or local-search frameworks to cut total evaluations when variable dependencies are initially unknown.
It suggests a route for black-box settings where direct transformation from solution to fitness is unavailable, by treating the surrogate as the usable representation.
Similar recursive discovery might be tested for two-variable or small-subset comparisons to broaden applicability beyond single flips.

Load-bearing premise

Real-world non-linear problems admit a limited perfect monotonical surrogate representation allowing exact single-variable comparisons to be constructed solely from existing fitness evaluations.

What would settle it

A concrete non-linear function where two solutions differing by one variable cannot be correctly compared using only the fitness values already evaluated, or where the recursive linkage procedure exceeds 2⌈log₂(n)⌉ steps to identify a dependency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11524 by F. Chicano, M.M. Komarnicki, M.W. Przewozniczek, R. Tin\'os.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Scalability for chosen problems performance of various optimizers (LT-GOMEA-eLyMPuS outperformed its FIHCwLL and base versions). Finally, these observations are confirmed by the scalability analysis presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Surrogates provide a cheap solution evaluation and offer significant leverage for optimizing computationally expensive problems. Usually, surrogates only approximate the original function. Recently, the perfect linear surrogates were proposed that ideally represent the original function. These surrogates do not mimic the original function. In fact, they are another (correct) representation of it and enable a wide range of possibilities, e.g., discovering the optimized function for problems where the direct transformation of the encoded solution into its evaluation is not available. However, many real-world problems can not be represented by linear models, making the aforementioned surrogates inapplicable. Therefore, we propose the Limited Monotonical Perfect Surrogate (LyMPuS), which overcomes this difficulty and enables the comparison of two solutions that differ by a single variable. Our proposition is suitable for limiting the cost of expensive local search procedures. The proposed surrogate is parameterless and can be trained on the fly without any separate surrogate-building step. It uses only the necessary fitness evaluations, and the already-paid costs are not wasted when the model is updated. Finally, it offers low-cost missing-linkage detection and low-cost linkage discovery, guaranteed to find a missing dependency in no more than $2\lceil\log_2(n)\rceil$ steps.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a parameterless on-the-fly monotonic surrogate with a claimed 2 log n recursive linkage bound, but the abstract states the guarantees without showing the derivation or any example.

read the letter

This paper's main pitch is a parameterless monotonic surrogate you can construct during the search itself, using only evaluations you've already done, plus a recursive linkage finder that supposedly needs at most 2 log n steps to spot any missing dependency. It builds on the earlier perfect linear surrogates by moving to monotonic cases, which lets it handle more realistic problems where linear models fall short. The on-the-fly update without wasting prior costs is a solid practical feature for local search in expensive optimization settings. The guaranteed low-cost discovery of linkages is the part that could make it stand out if the bound holds up. The construction itself looks like a reasonable extension, and it targets a real pain point in surrogate use for evolutionary algorithms. Where it gets shaky is the lack of any derivation or concrete example in the abstract for how the recursive procedure achieves the exact single-variable comparisons or why the bound is 2 ceiling log n. The stress-test concern seems fair: without an explicit assumption that the function has limited monotonic interactions, the method risks either exceeding the step limit or giving wrong comparisons on functions with denser dependencies. If the full paper doesn't walk through the proof or show it on a non-separable test case, that assumption becomes central and unproven. This is really for folks in evolutionary computation working on linkage learning or surrogate-assisted local search. A reader who wants to try new ways to cut evaluation costs in monotonic settings might pick up the idea and adapt it. It has enough novelty in the specific bound and on-the-fly property to warrant a serious referee, even if revisions are needed to firm up the guarantees. I'd say send it to peer review. The core idea is worth checking out properly.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes the Limited Monotonical Perfect Surrogate (LyMPuS) as a parameter-free, on-the-fly surrogate for computationally expensive non-linear optimization problems. It constructs a limited perfect monotonic representation directly from existing fitness evaluations via recursive linkage discovery, enabling exact comparisons between solutions that differ in only one variable. The approach claims low-cost missing-linkage detection with a guaranteed bound of at most 2⌈log₂(n)⌉ steps to recover any missing dependency, without separate training phases or wasted prior evaluations.

Significance. If the central claims hold, LyMPuS would offer a practical advance for local search in expensive black-box optimization by delivering exact single-variable comparisons at zero additional evaluation cost and without hyperparameters. The on-the-fly construction that reuses all prior fitness data and the linkage-discovery bound (if rigorously established) would distinguish it from approximate surrogates and from prior perfect linear surrogates that are inapplicable to non-linear cases.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the guarantee that a missing dependency can be isolated in no more than 2⌈log₂(n)⌉ steps is stated without any derivation, proof sketch, or inductive argument; this bound is load-bearing for the low-cost claim and must be shown to follow from the recursive procedure rather than from an unstated separability assumption.
[Method] The construction of the limited perfect monotonical surrogate (throughout the method description): the exact single-variable comparison property presupposes that the objective admits a limited-interaction monotonic decomposition recoverable solely from existing evaluations. No section states the precise conditions on f under which this holds, nor provides a counter-example check for dense or higher-order interactions that would violate the premise and produce incorrect comparisons.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The acronym LyMPuS is introduced in the abstract without an immediate parenthetical expansion, although the full name appears in the title and abstract text.
Notation for the linkage-discovery procedure (e.g., the recursive step and the partial-order construction) should be defined once in a dedicated subsection before being used in the complexity argument.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive report. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the suggested clarifications and additions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the guarantee that a missing dependency can be isolated in no more than 2⌈log₂(n)⌉ steps is stated without any derivation, proof sketch, or inductive argument; this bound is load-bearing for the low-cost claim and must be shown to follow from the recursive procedure rather than from an unstated separability assumption.

Authors: We agree that the abstract presents the bound without an accompanying derivation. The recursive linkage discovery procedure in the Methods section uses a divide-and-conquer strategy that partitions the variable set and isolates dependencies through successive halvings, analogous to binary search. This structure yields at most ⌈log₂(n)⌉ steps for isolation plus a constant factor for verification, producing the stated bound. To address the concern directly, we will add a concise proof sketch (including an inductive argument on the recursion depth) to the revised manuscript, making explicit that the bound follows from the procedure itself under the limited-interaction model. revision: yes
Referee: [Method] The construction of the limited perfect monotonical surrogate (throughout the method description): the exact single-variable comparison property presupposes that the objective admits a limited-interaction monotonic decomposition recoverable solely from existing evaluations. No section states the precise conditions on f under which this holds, nor provides a counter-example check for dense or higher-order interactions that would violate the premise and produce incorrect comparisons.

Authors: The LyMPuS construction relies on the objective admitting a limited-interaction monotonic decomposition, where interactions are confined to small variable subsets and each component is monotonic. This allows exact single-variable comparisons to be recovered from existing evaluations without additional cost. We will revise the Methods section to state these conditions on f explicitly. We will also add a brief discussion of counterexamples, such as objectives with dense higher-order non-monotonic interactions, where the surrogate could yield incorrect comparisons, and will clarify that LyMPuS applies specifically to problems satisfying the limited-interaction premise. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: construction is built directly from fitness evaluations with independent linkage-discovery procedure

full rationale

The paper defines LyMPuS explicitly as a parameter-free structure assembled on-the-fly from already-paid fitness evaluations of the original function. The claimed 2⌈log₂(n)⌉ bound and exact single-variable comparison property are presented as consequences of the recursive linkage-discovery algorithm operating on those evaluations, without any equation that reduces the output back to a fitted parameter or to the target result by definition. No self-citation is used to justify the central uniqueness or correctness claim; the linear-surrogate reference is only motivational background. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks and does not collapse to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on the domain assumption that non-linear functions permit a limited monotonic perfect surrogate for single-variable differences, constructed solely from paid evaluations.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Non-linear problems admit a limited perfect monotonical surrogate representation enabling exact single-variable comparisons
Invoked to overcome the inapplicability of linear perfect surrogates to many real-world problems.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5545 in / 1253 out tokens · 54937 ms · 2026-05-10T16:08:47.623418+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[1]

Edmund Burke and Sanja Petrovic. 2002. Recent research directions in automated timetabling.Europ. Jour. of Oper. Res.140 (07 2002), 266–280. doi:10.1016/S0377- 2217(02)00069-3

work page doi:10.1016/s0377- 2002
[2]

Wei-Ming Chen, Chung-Yu Shao, Po-Chun Hsu, and Tian-Li Yu. 2012. A test problem with adjustable degrees of overlap and conflict among subproblems. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computa- tion (GECCO ’12). ACM, 257–264

work page 2012
[3]

Francisco Chicano, Bilel Derbel, and Sébastien Verel. 2023. Fourier Transform- based Surrogates for Permutation Problems. InProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference(Lisbon, Portugal)(GECCO ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 275–283. doi:10.1145/3583131. 3590425

work page doi:10.1145/3583131 2023
[4]

Goldberg

Kalyanmoy Deb, Jeffrey Horn, and David E. Goldberg. 1993. Multimodal Decep- tive Functions.Complex Systems7, 2 (1993)

work page 1993
[5]

Arkadiy Dushatskiy, Tanja Alderliesten, and Peter A. N. Bosman. 2021. A Novel Approach to Designing Surrogate-assisted Genetic Algorithms by Combining Efficient Learning of Walsh Coefficients and Dependencies.ACM Trans. Evol. Learn. Optim.1, 2, Article 5 (July 2021), 23 pages. doi:10.1145/3453141

work page doi:10.1145/3453141 2021
[6]

Goldman and William F

Brian W. Goldman and William F. Punch. 2014. Parameter-less Population Pyramid. InProceedings of the 2014 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation(Vancouver, BC, Canada)(GECCO ’14). ACM, 785–792

work page 2014
[7]

R. B. Heckendorn. 2002. Embedded Landscapes.Evolutionary Computation10, 4 (2002), 345–369

work page 2002
[8]

Shih-Huan Hsu and Tian-Li Yu. 2015. Optimization by Pairwise Linkage De- tection, Incremental Linkage Set, and Restricted / Back Mixing: DSMGA-II. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computa- tion (GECCO ’15). ACM, 519–526

work page 2015
[9]

Yaochu Jin. 2011. Surrogate-assisted evolutionary computation: Recent advances and future challenges.Swarm and Evolutionary Computation1, 2 (2011), 61–70. doi:10.1016/j.swevo.2011.05.001

work page doi:10.1016/j.swevo.2011.05.001 2011
[10]

Marcin Michal Komarnicki, Michal Witold Przewozniczek, Halina Kwasnicka, and Krzysztof Walkowiak. 2023. Incremental Recursive Ranking Grouping for Large-Scale Global Optimization.IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 27, 5 (2023), 1498–1513

work page 2023
[11]

Marcin Michal Komarnicki, Michal Witold Przewozniczek, Renato Tinós, and Xiaodong Li. 2024. Overlapping Cooperative Co-Evolution for Overlapping Large-Scale Global Optimization Problems. InProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference(Melbourne, VIC, Australia)(GECCO ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 665–67...

work page arXiv 2024
[12]

Florian Leprêtre, Sébastien Verel, Cyril Fonlupt, and Virginie Marion. 2019. Walsh functions as surrogate model for pseudo-boolean optimization problems. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference(Prague, Czech Republic)(GECCO ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 303–311. doi:10.1145/3321707.3321800

work page doi:10.1145/3321707.3321800 2019
[13]

Xiaoliang Ma, Zhitao Huang, Xiaodong Li, Lei Wang, Yutao Qi, and Zexuan Zhu

work page
[14]

doi:10.1109/ TEVC.2022.3144684

Merged Differential Grouping for Large-Scale Global Optimization.IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation26, 6 (2022), 1439–1451. doi:10.1109/ TEVC.2022.3144684

work page arXiv 2022
[15]

Munetomo and D.E

M. Munetomo and D.E. Goldberg. 1999. A genetic algorithm using linkage identi- fication by nonlinearity check. InIEEE SMC’99 Conference Proceedings. 1999 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (Cat. No.99CH37028), Vol. 1. 595–600 vol.1. doi:10.1109/ICSMC.1999.814159

work page doi:10.1109/icsmc.1999.814159 1999
[16]

Goldberg

Masaharu Munetomo and David E. Goldberg. 1999. Linkage identification by non-monotonicity detection for overlapping functions.Evol. Comput.7, 4 (dec 1999), 377–398. doi:10.1162/evco.1999.7.4.377

work page doi:10.1162/evco.1999.7.4.377 1999
[17]

Michal Witold Przewozniczek, Francisco Chicano, Renato Tinós, Jakub Nalepa, Bogdan Ruszczak, and Agata Wijata. 2025. On Revealing the Hidden Problem Structure in Real-World and Theoretical Problems Using Walsh Coefficient In- fluence. InProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO ’25). ACM, 295–303

work page 2025
[18]

Michal Witold Przewozniczek, Bartosz Frej, and Marcin Michal Komarnicki. 2025. From Direct to Directional Variable Dependencies—Nonsymmetrical Dependen- cies Discovery in Real-World and Theoretical Problems.IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation29, 2 (2025), 490–504. doi:10.1109/TEVC.2024.3496193

work page doi:10.1109/tevc.2024.3496193 2025
[19]

Przewozniczek, Renato Tinós, Bartosz Frej, and Marcin M

Michal W. Przewozniczek, Renato Tinós, Bartosz Frej, and Marcin M. Komar- nicki. 2022. On Turning Black - into Dark Gray-Optimization with the Di- rect Empirical Linkage Discovery and Partition Crossover. InProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference(Boston, Massachusetts) (GECCO ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, ...

work page doi:10.1145/3512290.3528734 2022
[20]

Michal Witold Przewozniczek, Renato Tinós, and Marcin Michal Komarnicki

work page
[21]

InProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (Lisbon, Portugal)(GECCO ’23)

First Improvement Hill Climber with Linkage Learning – on Introducing Dark Gray-Box Optimization into Statistical Linkage Learning Genetic Algo- rithms. InProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (Lisbon, Portugal)(GECCO ’23). ACM, 946–954

work page
[22]

Lawrence Saul and Mehran Kardar. 1994. The 2D±J Ising spin glass: exact partition functions in polynomial time.Nuclear Physics B432, 3 (1994), 641–667

work page 1994
[23]

Yuan Sun, Xiaodong Li, Andreas Ernst, and Mohammad Nabi Omidvar. 2019. Decomposition for Large-scale Optimization Problems with Overlapping Com- ponents. In2019 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC). 326–333. doi:10.1109/CEC.2019.8790204

work page doi:10.1109/cec.2019.8790204 2019
[24]

Dirk Thierens. 2010. The Linkage Tree Genetic Algorithm. InParallel Problem Solving from Nature, PPSN XI: 11th International Conference, Kraków, Poland, September 11-15, 2010, Proceedings, Part I. 264–273

work page 2010
[25]

Dirk Thierens and Peter Bosman. 2012. Predetermined versus Learned Linkage Models. InProceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA)(GECCO ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 289–296

work page 2012
[26]

Przewozniczek, and Darrell Whitley

Renato Tinós, Michal W. Przewozniczek, and Darrell Whitley. 2022. Iterated Local Search with Perturbation Based on Variables Interaction for Pseudo-Boolean Op- timization. InProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (Boston, Massachusetts)(GECCO ’22). ACM, 296–304

work page 2022
[27]

Renato Tinós, Darrell Whitley, and Francisco Chicano. 2015. Partition Crossover for Pseudo-Boolean Optimization. InProceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Foundations of Genetic Algorithms XIII(Aberystwyth, United Kingdom)(FOGA ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 137–149. doi:10. 1145/2725494.2725497

work page arXiv 2015
[28]

Tobias van Driessel and Dirk Thierens. 2021. Benchmark Generator for TD Mk Landscapes. InProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1227–1233

work page 2021
[29]

Valentin Vendi, Sébastien Verel, and Cyril Fonlupt. 2024. Sparse Surrogate Model for Optimization: Example of the Bus Stops Spacing Problem. InEvolutionary Computation in Combinatorial Optimization, Thomas Stützle and Markus Wagner (Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 16–32

work page 2024
[30]

Sébastien Verel, Bilel Derbel, Arnaud Liefooghe, Hernán Aguirre, and Kiyoshi Tanaka. 2018. A Surrogate Model Based on Walsh Decomposition for Pseudo- Boolean Functions. InParallel Problem Solving from Nature – PPSN XV, Anne Auger, Carlos M. Fonseca, Nuno Lourenço, Penousal Machado, Luís Paquete, and Darrell Whitley (Eds.). Springer International Publishin...

work page 2018
[31]

D. Whitley. 2019. Next generation genetic algorithms: a user’s guide and tutorial. InHandbook of Metaheuristics. Springer, 245–274

work page 2019
[32]

Darrell Whitley, Hernan Aguirre, and Andrew Sutton. 2020. Understanding Transforms of Pseudo-Boolean Functions. InProceedings of the 2020 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference(Cancún, Mexico)(GECCO ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 760–768

work page 2020
[33]

Darrell Whitley, Gabriela Ochoa, and Francisco Chicano. 2025. How Partition Crossover Exposes Parallel Lattices and the Fractal Structure of k-Bounded Functions. InProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (NH Malaga Hotel, Malaga, Spain)(GECCO ’25). ACM, 836–844

work page 2025
[34]

L. D. Whitley, F. Chicano, and B. W. Goldman. 2016. Gray Box Optimization for Mk Landscapes (NK Landscapes and MAX-kSAT).Evolutionary Computation24, 3 (Sep. 2016), 491–519

work page 2016
[35]

Wright, R.K

A.H. Wright, R.K. Thompson, and Jian Zhang. 2000. The computational complex- ity of N-K fitness functions.IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation4, 4 (2000), 373–379

work page 2000
[36]

Kaveh Zadeh, Fatemeh Harsej, Mahboubeh Sadeghpour, and Mohammad Molani Aghdam. 2022. Designing a multi-echelon closed-loop supply chain with disruption in the distribution centers under uncertainty.Journal of Indus- trial and Management Optimization19 (01 2022). doi:10.3934/jimo.2022057

work page doi:10.3934/jimo.2022057 2022

[1] [1]

Edmund Burke and Sanja Petrovic. 2002. Recent research directions in automated timetabling.Europ. Jour. of Oper. Res.140 (07 2002), 266–280. doi:10.1016/S0377- 2217(02)00069-3

work page doi:10.1016/s0377- 2002

[2] [2]

Wei-Ming Chen, Chung-Yu Shao, Po-Chun Hsu, and Tian-Li Yu. 2012. A test problem with adjustable degrees of overlap and conflict among subproblems. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computa- tion (GECCO ’12). ACM, 257–264

work page 2012

[3] [3]

Francisco Chicano, Bilel Derbel, and Sébastien Verel. 2023. Fourier Transform- based Surrogates for Permutation Problems. InProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference(Lisbon, Portugal)(GECCO ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 275–283. doi:10.1145/3583131. 3590425

work page doi:10.1145/3583131 2023

[4] [4]

Goldberg

Kalyanmoy Deb, Jeffrey Horn, and David E. Goldberg. 1993. Multimodal Decep- tive Functions.Complex Systems7, 2 (1993)

work page 1993

[5] [5]

Arkadiy Dushatskiy, Tanja Alderliesten, and Peter A. N. Bosman. 2021. A Novel Approach to Designing Surrogate-assisted Genetic Algorithms by Combining Efficient Learning of Walsh Coefficients and Dependencies.ACM Trans. Evol. Learn. Optim.1, 2, Article 5 (July 2021), 23 pages. doi:10.1145/3453141

work page doi:10.1145/3453141 2021

[6] [6]

Goldman and William F

Brian W. Goldman and William F. Punch. 2014. Parameter-less Population Pyramid. InProceedings of the 2014 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation(Vancouver, BC, Canada)(GECCO ’14). ACM, 785–792

work page 2014

[7] [7]

R. B. Heckendorn. 2002. Embedded Landscapes.Evolutionary Computation10, 4 (2002), 345–369

work page 2002

[8] [8]

Shih-Huan Hsu and Tian-Li Yu. 2015. Optimization by Pairwise Linkage De- tection, Incremental Linkage Set, and Restricted / Back Mixing: DSMGA-II. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computa- tion (GECCO ’15). ACM, 519–526

work page 2015

[9] [9]

Yaochu Jin. 2011. Surrogate-assisted evolutionary computation: Recent advances and future challenges.Swarm and Evolutionary Computation1, 2 (2011), 61–70. doi:10.1016/j.swevo.2011.05.001

work page doi:10.1016/j.swevo.2011.05.001 2011

[10] [10]

Marcin Michal Komarnicki, Michal Witold Przewozniczek, Halina Kwasnicka, and Krzysztof Walkowiak. 2023. Incremental Recursive Ranking Grouping for Large-Scale Global Optimization.IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 27, 5 (2023), 1498–1513

work page 2023

[11] [11]

Marcin Michal Komarnicki, Michal Witold Przewozniczek, Renato Tinós, and Xiaodong Li. 2024. Overlapping Cooperative Co-Evolution for Overlapping Large-Scale Global Optimization Problems. InProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference(Melbourne, VIC, Australia)(GECCO ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 665–67...

work page arXiv 2024

[12] [12]

Florian Leprêtre, Sébastien Verel, Cyril Fonlupt, and Virginie Marion. 2019. Walsh functions as surrogate model for pseudo-boolean optimization problems. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference(Prague, Czech Republic)(GECCO ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 303–311. doi:10.1145/3321707.3321800

work page doi:10.1145/3321707.3321800 2019

[13] [13]

Xiaoliang Ma, Zhitao Huang, Xiaodong Li, Lei Wang, Yutao Qi, and Zexuan Zhu

work page

[14] [14]

doi:10.1109/ TEVC.2022.3144684

Merged Differential Grouping for Large-Scale Global Optimization.IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation26, 6 (2022), 1439–1451. doi:10.1109/ TEVC.2022.3144684

work page arXiv 2022

[15] [15]

Munetomo and D.E

M. Munetomo and D.E. Goldberg. 1999. A genetic algorithm using linkage identi- fication by nonlinearity check. InIEEE SMC’99 Conference Proceedings. 1999 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (Cat. No.99CH37028), Vol. 1. 595–600 vol.1. doi:10.1109/ICSMC.1999.814159

work page doi:10.1109/icsmc.1999.814159 1999

[16] [16]

Goldberg

Masaharu Munetomo and David E. Goldberg. 1999. Linkage identification by non-monotonicity detection for overlapping functions.Evol. Comput.7, 4 (dec 1999), 377–398. doi:10.1162/evco.1999.7.4.377

work page doi:10.1162/evco.1999.7.4.377 1999

[17] [17]

Michal Witold Przewozniczek, Francisco Chicano, Renato Tinós, Jakub Nalepa, Bogdan Ruszczak, and Agata Wijata. 2025. On Revealing the Hidden Problem Structure in Real-World and Theoretical Problems Using Walsh Coefficient In- fluence. InProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO ’25). ACM, 295–303

work page 2025

[18] [18]

Michal Witold Przewozniczek, Bartosz Frej, and Marcin Michal Komarnicki. 2025. From Direct to Directional Variable Dependencies—Nonsymmetrical Dependen- cies Discovery in Real-World and Theoretical Problems.IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation29, 2 (2025), 490–504. doi:10.1109/TEVC.2024.3496193

work page doi:10.1109/tevc.2024.3496193 2025

[19] [19]

Przewozniczek, Renato Tinós, Bartosz Frej, and Marcin M

Michal W. Przewozniczek, Renato Tinós, Bartosz Frej, and Marcin M. Komar- nicki. 2022. On Turning Black - into Dark Gray-Optimization with the Di- rect Empirical Linkage Discovery and Partition Crossover. InProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference(Boston, Massachusetts) (GECCO ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, ...

work page doi:10.1145/3512290.3528734 2022

[20] [20]

Michal Witold Przewozniczek, Renato Tinós, and Marcin Michal Komarnicki

work page

[21] [21]

InProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (Lisbon, Portugal)(GECCO ’23)

First Improvement Hill Climber with Linkage Learning – on Introducing Dark Gray-Box Optimization into Statistical Linkage Learning Genetic Algo- rithms. InProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (Lisbon, Portugal)(GECCO ’23). ACM, 946–954

work page

[22] [22]

Lawrence Saul and Mehran Kardar. 1994. The 2D±J Ising spin glass: exact partition functions in polynomial time.Nuclear Physics B432, 3 (1994), 641–667

work page 1994

[23] [23]

Yuan Sun, Xiaodong Li, Andreas Ernst, and Mohammad Nabi Omidvar. 2019. Decomposition for Large-scale Optimization Problems with Overlapping Com- ponents. In2019 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC). 326–333. doi:10.1109/CEC.2019.8790204

work page doi:10.1109/cec.2019.8790204 2019

[24] [24]

Dirk Thierens. 2010. The Linkage Tree Genetic Algorithm. InParallel Problem Solving from Nature, PPSN XI: 11th International Conference, Kraków, Poland, September 11-15, 2010, Proceedings, Part I. 264–273

work page 2010

[25] [25]

Dirk Thierens and Peter Bosman. 2012. Predetermined versus Learned Linkage Models. InProceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA)(GECCO ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 289–296

work page 2012

[26] [26]

Przewozniczek, and Darrell Whitley

Renato Tinós, Michal W. Przewozniczek, and Darrell Whitley. 2022. Iterated Local Search with Perturbation Based on Variables Interaction for Pseudo-Boolean Op- timization. InProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (Boston, Massachusetts)(GECCO ’22). ACM, 296–304

work page 2022

[27] [27]

Renato Tinós, Darrell Whitley, and Francisco Chicano. 2015. Partition Crossover for Pseudo-Boolean Optimization. InProceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Foundations of Genetic Algorithms XIII(Aberystwyth, United Kingdom)(FOGA ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 137–149. doi:10. 1145/2725494.2725497

work page arXiv 2015

[28] [28]

Tobias van Driessel and Dirk Thierens. 2021. Benchmark Generator for TD Mk Landscapes. InProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1227–1233

work page 2021

[29] [29]

Valentin Vendi, Sébastien Verel, and Cyril Fonlupt. 2024. Sparse Surrogate Model for Optimization: Example of the Bus Stops Spacing Problem. InEvolutionary Computation in Combinatorial Optimization, Thomas Stützle and Markus Wagner (Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 16–32

work page 2024

[30] [30]

Sébastien Verel, Bilel Derbel, Arnaud Liefooghe, Hernán Aguirre, and Kiyoshi Tanaka. 2018. A Surrogate Model Based on Walsh Decomposition for Pseudo- Boolean Functions. InParallel Problem Solving from Nature – PPSN XV, Anne Auger, Carlos M. Fonseca, Nuno Lourenço, Penousal Machado, Luís Paquete, and Darrell Whitley (Eds.). Springer International Publishin...

work page 2018

[31] [31]

D. Whitley. 2019. Next generation genetic algorithms: a user’s guide and tutorial. InHandbook of Metaheuristics. Springer, 245–274

work page 2019

[32] [32]

Darrell Whitley, Hernan Aguirre, and Andrew Sutton. 2020. Understanding Transforms of Pseudo-Boolean Functions. InProceedings of the 2020 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference(Cancún, Mexico)(GECCO ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 760–768

work page 2020

[33] [33]

Darrell Whitley, Gabriela Ochoa, and Francisco Chicano. 2025. How Partition Crossover Exposes Parallel Lattices and the Fractal Structure of k-Bounded Functions. InProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (NH Malaga Hotel, Malaga, Spain)(GECCO ’25). ACM, 836–844

work page 2025

[34] [34]

L. D. Whitley, F. Chicano, and B. W. Goldman. 2016. Gray Box Optimization for Mk Landscapes (NK Landscapes and MAX-kSAT).Evolutionary Computation24, 3 (Sep. 2016), 491–519

work page 2016

[35] [35]

Wright, R.K

A.H. Wright, R.K. Thompson, and Jian Zhang. 2000. The computational complex- ity of N-K fitness functions.IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation4, 4 (2000), 373–379

work page 2000

[36] [36]

Kaveh Zadeh, Fatemeh Harsej, Mahboubeh Sadeghpour, and Mohammad Molani Aghdam. 2022. Designing a multi-echelon closed-loop supply chain with disruption in the distribution centers under uncertainty.Journal of Indus- trial and Management Optimization19 (01 2022). doi:10.3934/jimo.2022057

work page doi:10.3934/jimo.2022057 2022