The Univariate Marginal Distribution Algorithm Copes Well with Deception and Epistasis

Abstract In their recent work, Lehre and Nguyen (2019) show that the univariate marginal distribution algorithm (UMDA) needs time exponential in the parent populations size to optimize the DeceptiveLeadingBlocks (DLB) problem. They conclude from this result that univariate EDAs have difficulties with deception and epistasis. In this work, we show that this negative finding is caused by the choice of the parameters of the UMDA. When the population sizes are chosen large enough to prevent genetic drift, then the UMDA optimizes the DLB problem with high probability with at most λ(n2+2elnn) fitness evaluations. Since an offspring population size λ of order nlogn can prevent genetic drift, the UMDA can solve the DLB problem with O(n2logn) fitness evaluations. In contrast, for classic evolutionary algorithms no better runtime guarantee than O(n3) is known (which we prove to be tight for the (1+1) EA), so our result rather suggests that the UMDA can cope well with deception and epistatis. From a broader perspective, our result shows that the UMDA can cope better with local optima than many classic evolutionary algorithms; such a result was previously known only for the compact genetic algorithm. Together with the lower bound of Lehre and Nguyen, our result for the first time rigorously proves that running EDAs in the regime with genetic drift can lead to drastic performance losses.

[1]  Benjamin Doerr Does Comma Selection Help to Cope with Local Optima? , 2020, GECCO.

[2]  H. Mühlenbein,et al.  From Recombination of Genes to the Estimation of Distributions I. Binary Parameters , 1996, PPSN.

[3]  Dirk Sudholt,et al.  On the Choice of the Update Strength in Estimation-of-Distribution Algorithms and Ant Colony Optimization , 2018, Algorithmica.

[4]  Per Kristian Lehre,et al.  When is an estimation of distribution algorithm better than an evolutionary algorithm? , 2009, 2009 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[5]  Per Kristian Lehre,et al.  Escaping Local Optima Using Crossover With Emergent Diversity , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[6]  Benjamin Doerr,et al.  Multiplicative Up-Drift , 2019, Algorithmica.

[7]  Xiequan Fan,et al.  Exponential inequalities for martingales with applications , 2013, 1311.6273.

[8]  Per Kristian Lehre,et al.  On the limitations of the univariate marginal distribution algorithm to deception and where bivariate EDAs might help , 2019, FOGA '19.

[9]  Duc-Cuong Dang,et al.  Escaping Local Optima with Diversity Mechanisms and Crossover , 2016, GECCO.

[10]  Benjamin Doerr,et al.  Probabilistic Tools for the Analysis of Randomized Optimization Heuristics , 2018, Theory of Evolutionary Computation.

[11]  Carsten Witt,et al.  Domino convergence: why one should hill-climb on linear functions , 2018, GECCO.

[12]  Dirk Sudholt,et al.  Medium step sizes are harmful for the compact genetic algorithm , 2018, GECCO.

[13]  Duc-Cuong Dang,et al.  Level-Based Analysis of Genetic Algorithms and Other Search Processes , 2014, bioRxiv.

[14]  Stefan Droste,et al.  A rigorous analysis of the compact genetic algorithm for linear functions , 2006, Natural Computing.

[15]  Frank Neumann,et al.  Optimal Fixed and Adaptive Mutation Rates for the LeadingOnes Problem , 2010, PPSN.

[16]  Benjamin Doerr,et al.  Edge-based representation beats vertex-based representation in shortest path problems , 2010, GECCO '10.

[17]  Benjamin Doerr,et al.  Bivariate estimation-of-distribution algorithms can find an exponential number of optima , 2020, GECCO.

[18]  Benjamin Doerr,et al.  Analyzing randomized search heuristics via stochastic domination , 2019, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[19]  Benjamin Doerr,et al.  A tight runtime analysis for the cGA on jump functions: EDAs can cross fitness valleys at no extra cost , 2019, GECCO.

[20]  Duc-Cuong Dang,et al.  Runtime Analysis of Non-elitist Populations: From Classical Optimisation to Partial Information , 2016, Algorithmica.

[21]  Benjamin Doerr,et al.  The Univariate Marginal Distribution Algorithm Copes Well with Deception and Epistasis , 2020, Evolutionary Computation.

[22]  Benjamin Doerr,et al.  Significance-Based Estimation-of-Distribution Algorithms , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[23]  Andrew M. Sutton,et al.  On the runtime dynamics of the compact genetic algorithm on jump functions , 2018, GECCO.

[24]  Per Kristian Lehre,et al.  Improved runtime bounds for the univariate marginal distribution algorithm via anti-concentration , 2017, GECCO.

[25]  Timo Kötzing Concentration of First Hitting Times Under Additive Drift , 2015, Algorithmica.

[26]  W. Hoeffding Probability Inequalities for sums of Bounded Random Variables , 1963 .

[27]  Duc-Cuong Dang,et al.  Simplified Runtime Analysis of Estimation of Distribution Algorithms , 2015, GECCO.

[28]  Weijie Zheng,et al.  Sharp Bounds for Genetic Drift in Estimation of Distribution Algorithms , 2020, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[29]  J. A. Lozano,et al.  Estimation of Distribution Algorithms , 2002, Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation.

[30]  Paul A. Viola,et al.  MIMIC: Finding Optima by Estimating Probability Densities , 1996, NIPS.

[31]  Marvin Künnemann,et al.  Optimizing linear functions with the (1+λ) evolutionary algorithm - Different asymptotic runtimes for different instances , 2015, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[32]  Carsten Witt,et al.  Lower Bounds on the Run Time of the Univariate Marginal Distribution Algorithm on OneMax , 2017, FOGA '17.

[33]  Carsten Witt,et al.  Upper Bounds on the Running Time of the Univariate Marginal Distribution Algorithm on OneMax , 2018, Algorithmica.

[34]  Carsten Witt,et al.  Theory of estimation-of-distribution algorithms , 2018, GECCO.

[35]  Per Kristian Lehre,et al.  Fitness-levels for non-elitist populations , 2011, GECCO '11.

[36]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  On the analysis of the (1+1) evolutionary algorithm , 2002, Theor. Comput. Sci..