We introduce the Smoothed Online Optimization for Target Tracking (SOOTT) problem, a new framework that integrates three key objectives in online decision-making under uncertainty: (1) tracking cost for following a dynamically moving target, (2) adversarial perturbation cost for withstanding unpredictable disturbances, and (3) switching cost for penalizing abrupt changes in decisions. This formulation captures real-world scenarios such as elastic and inelastic workload scheduling in AI clusters, where operators must balance long-term service-level agreements (e.g., LLM training) against sudden demand spikes (e.g., real-time inference). We first present BEST, a robust algorithm with provable competitive guarantees for SOOTT. To enhance practical performance, we introduce CoRT, a learning-augmented variant that incorporates untrusted black-box predictions (e.g., from ML models) into its decision process. Our theoretical analysis shows that CoRT strictly improves over BEST when predictions are accurate, while maintaining robustness under arbitrary prediction errors. We validate our approach through a case study on workload scheduling, demonstrating that both algorithms effectively balance trajectory tracking, decision smoothness, and resilience to external disturbances.

We analyze a simple hill-climbing algorithm (RMHC) that was previously shown to outperform a genetic algorithm (GA) on a simple "Royal Road" function. We then analyze an "idealized" genetic algorithm (IGA) that is significantly faster than RMHC and that gives a lower bound for GA speed. We identify the features of the IGA that give rise to this speedup, and discuss how these features can be incorporated into a real GA. 1 INTRODUCTION Our goal is to understand the class of problems for which genetic algorithms (GA) are most suited, and in particular, for which they will outperform other search algorithms. Several studies have empirically compared GAs with other search and optimization methods such as simple hill-climbing (e.g., Davis, 1991), simulated annealing (e.g., Ingber & Rosen, 1992), linear, nonlinear, and integer programming techniques, and other traditional optimization techniques (e.g., De Jong, 1975). However, such comparisons typically compare one version of the GA with a second algorithm on a single problem or set of problems, often using performance criteria which may not be appropriate.

We analyze a simple hill-climbing algorithm (RMHC) that was previously shown to outperform a genetic algorithm (GA) on a simple "Royal Road" function. We then analyze an "idealized" genetic algorithm (IGA) that is significantly faster than RMHC and that gives a lower bound for GA speed. We identify the features of the IGA that give rise to this speedup, and discuss how these features can be incorporated into a real GA. 1 INTRODUCTION Our goal is to understand the class of problems for which genetic algorithms (GA) are most suited, and in particular, for which they will outperform other search algorithms. Several studies have empirically compared GAs with other search and optimization methods such as simple hill-climbing (e.g., Davis, 1991), simulated annealing (e.g., Ingber & Rosen, 1992), linear, nonlinear, and integer programming techniques, and other traditional optimization techniques (e.g., De Jong, 1975). However, such comparisons typically compare one version of the GA with a second algorithm on a single problem or set of problems, often using performance criteria which may not be appropriate.

HoUand Dept. of Psychology University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109 StephanieForrest Dept. of Computer Science University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 Abstract We analyze a simple hill-climbing algorithm (RMHC) that was previously shownto outperform a genetic algorithm (GA) on a simple "Royal Road" function. We then analyze an "idealized" genetic algorithm (IGA) that is significantly faster than RMHC and that gives a lower bound for GA speed. We identify the features of the IGA that give rise to this speedup, and discuss how these features can be incorporated into a real GA. 1 INTRODUCTION Our goal is to understand the class of problems for which genetic algorithms (GA) are most suited, and in particular, for which they will outperform other search algorithms. Several studies have empirically compared GAs with other search and optimization methods such as simple hill-climbing (e.g., Davis, 1991), simulated annealing (e.g., Ingber & Rosen, 1992), linear, nonlinear, and integer programming techniques, and other traditional optimization techniques (e.g., De Jong, 1975). However, such comparisons typically compare one version of the GA with a second algorithm on a single problem or set of problems, often using performance criteria which may not be appropriate.