Performance analysis of randomised search heuristics operating with a fixed budget

When for a difficult real-world optimisation problem no good problem-specific algorithm is available often randomised search heuristics are used. They are hoped to deliver good solutions in acceptable time. The theoretical analysis usually concentrates on the average time needed to find an optimal or approximately optimal solution. This matches neither the application in practice nor the empirical analysis since usually optimal solutions are not known and even if found cannot be recognised. More often the algorithms are stopped after some time. This motivates a theoretical analysis to concentrate on the quality of the best solution obtained after a pre-specified number of function evaluations called budget. Using this perspective two simple randomised search heuristics, random local search and the (1+1) evolutionary algorithm, are analysed on some well-known example problems. Upper and lower bounds on the expected quality of a solution for a fixed budget of function evaluations are proven. The analysis shows novel and challenging problems in the study of randomised search heuristics. It demonstrates the potential of this shift in perspective from expected run time to expected solution quality.

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

[2]  Carsten Witt,et al.  Optimizing Linear Functions with Randomized Search Heuristics - The Robustness of Mutation , 2012, STACS.

[3]  Rajeev Motwani,et al.  Randomized Algorithms , 1995, SIGA.

[4]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  Comparing global and local mutations on bit strings , 2008, GECCO '08.

[5]  Benjamin Doerr,et al.  Analyzing Randomized Search Heuristics: Tools from Probability Theory , 2011, Theory of Randomized Search Heuristics.

[6]  Mahmoud Fouz,et al.  Sharp bounds by probability-generating functions and variable drift , 2011, GECCO '11.

[7]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  Fixed budget computations: a different perspective on run time analysis , 2012, GECCO '12.

[8]  Harald Niederreiter,et al.  Probability and computing: randomized algorithms and probabilistic analysis , 2006, Math. Comput..

[9]  Dirk Sudholt,et al.  Runtime analysis of a binary particle swarm optimizer , 2010, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[10]  Xin Yao,et al.  On the approximation ability of evolutionary optimization with application to minimum set cover , 2010, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  A method to derive fixed budget results from expected optimisation times , 2013, GECCO '13.

[12]  Dean F. Hougen,et al.  Is "best-so-far" a good algorithmic performance metric? , 2008, GECCO '08.

[13]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  On the Analysis of Evolutionary Algorithms - A Proof That Crossover Really Can Help , 1999 .

[14]  Dirk Sudholt,et al.  Runtime analysis of the 1-ANT ant colony optimizer , 2011, Theor. Comput. Sci..

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

[16]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  Analysis of evolutionary algorithms: from computational complexity analysis to algorithm engineering , 2011, FOGA '11.

[17]  Anne Auger,et al.  Theory of Randomized Search Heuristics , 2012, Algorithmica.

[18]  Anne Auger,et al.  Theory of Randomized Search Heuristics: Foundations and Recent Developments , 2011, Theory of Randomized Search Heuristics.

[19]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Are Multiple Runs of Genetic Algorithms Better than One? , 2003, GECCO.

[20]  Victor J. Rayward-Smith,et al.  Fitness Distance Correlation and Ridge Functions , 1998, PPSN.