Theoretical Perspective of Convergence Complexity of Evolutionary Algorithms Adopting Optimal Mixing

The optimal mixing evolutionary algorithms (OMEAs) have recently drawn much attention for their robustness, small size of required population, and efficiency in terms of number of function evaluations (NFE). In this paper, the performances and behaviors of convergence in OMEAs are studied by investigating the mechanism of optimal mixing (OM), the variation operator in OMEAs, under two scenarios---one-layer and two-layer masks. For the case of one-layer masks, the required population size is derived from the viewpoint of initial supply, while the convergence time is derived by analyzing the progress of sub-solution growth. NFE is then asymptotically bounded with rational probability by estimating the probability of performing evaluations. For the case of two-layer masks, empirical results indicate that the required population size is proportional to both the degree of cross competition and the results from the one-layer-mask case. The derived models also indicate that population sizing is decided by initial supply when disjoint masks are adopted, that the high selection pressure imposed by OM makes the composition of sub-problems impact little on NFE, and that the population size requirement for two-layer masks increases with the reverse-growth probability.

[1]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Analyzing Deception in Trap Functions , 1992, FOGA.

[2]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Population sizing for entropy-based model building in discrete estimation of distribution algorithms , 2007, GECCO '07.

[3]  Dirk Thierens,et al.  Linkage neighbors, optimal mixing and forced improvements in genetic algorithms , 2012, GECCO '12.

[4]  Tian-Li Yu,et al.  Investigation on efficiency of optimal mixing on various linkage sets , 2014, 2014 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC).

[5]  Dirk Thierens.  Linkage tree genetic algorithm: first results , 2010, GECCO '10.

[6]  Franz Rothlauf,et al.  Evaluation-Relaxation Schemes for Genetic and Evolutionary Algorithms , 2004 .

[7]  Dirk Thierens,et al.  More concise and robust linkage learning by filtering and combining linkage hierarchies , 2013, GECCO '13.

[8]  Dirk Thierens,et al.  Mixing in Genetic Algorithms , 1993, ICGA.

[9]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  The Gambler's Ruin Problem, Genetic Algorithms, and the Sizing of Populations , 1999, Evolutionary Computation.

[10]  Daniel R. Tauritz,et al.  Linkage tree genetic algorithms: variants and analysis , 2012, GECCO '12.

[11]  Dirk Thierens,et al.  Optimal mixing evolutionary algorithms , 2011, GECCO '11.

[12]  Dirk Thierens,et al.  Hierarchical problem solving with the linkage tree genetic algorithm , 2013, GECCO '13.

[13]  Dirk Thierens,et al.  Toward a Better Understanding of Mixing in Genetic Algorithms , 1993 .

[14]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Genetic Algorithms, Noise, and the Sizing of Populations , 1992, Complex Syst..

[15]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Scalability of the Bayesian optimization algorithm , 2002, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[16]  Heinz Mühlenbein,et al.  Predictive Models for the Breeder Genetic Algorithm I. Continuous Parameter Optimization , 1993, Evolutionary Computation.

[17]  Melanie Mitchell,et al.  The royal road for genetic algorithms: Fitness landscapes and GA performance , 1991 .

[18]  Thomas D. LaToza,et al.  On the supply of building blocks , 2001 .