Speeding Up Evolutionary Algorithms through Asymmetric Mutation Operators

Successful applications of evolutionary algorithms show that certain variation operators can lead to good solutions much faster than other ones. We examine this behavior observed in practice from a theoretical point of view and investigate the effect of an asymmetric mutation operator in evolutionary algorithms with respect to the runtime behavior. Considering the Eulerian cycle problem we present runtime bounds for evolutionary algorithms using an asymmetric operator which are much smaller than the best upper bounds for a more general one. In our analysis it turns out that a plateau which both algorithms have to cope with changes its structure in a way that allows the algorithm to obtain an improvement much faster. In addition, we present a lower bound for the general case which shows that the asymmetric operator speeds up computation by at least a linear factor.

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

[2]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  Design and Management of Complex Technical Processes and Systems by means of Computational Intelligence Methods Evolutionary Algorithms-How to Cope With Plateaus of Constant Fitness and When to Reject Strings of the Same Fitness , 2001 .

[3]  Christian Bierwirth,et al.  An efficient genetic algorithm for job shop scheduling with tardiness objectives , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[4]  Heinz Mühlenbein,et al.  How Genetic Algorithms Really Work: Mutation and Hillclimbing , 1992, PPSN.

[5]  Ingo Wegener,et al.  Randomized local search, evolutionary algorithms, and the minimum spanning tree problem , 2004, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[6]  Günter Rudolph,et al.  How Mutation and Selection Solve Long-Path Problems in Polynomial Expected Time , 1996, Evolutionary Computation.

[7]  Ingo Wegener,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms and the Maximum Matching Problem , 2003, STACS.

[8]  Carsten Witt,et al.  UNIVERSITY OF DORTMUND REIHE COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH CENTER 531 Design and Management of Complex Technical Processes and Systems by means of Computational Intelligence Methods Worst-Case and Average-Case Approximations by Simple Randomized Search Heuristics , 2004 .

[9]  C. W. Tate.  Solve it. , 2005, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[10]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  The Analysis of Evolutionary Algorithms—A Proof That Crossover Really Can Help , 2002, Algorithmica.

[11]  Frank Neumann.  Expected Runtimes of a Simple Evolutionary Algorithm for the Multi-objective Minimum Spanning Tree Problem , 2004, PPSN.

[12]  C. Hierholzer,et al.  Ueber die Möglichkeit, einen Linienzug ohne Wiederholung und ohne Unterbrechung zu umfahren , 1873 .

[13]  Schloss Birlinghoven,et al.  How Genetic Algorithms Really Work I.mutation and Hillclimbing , 2022 .

[14]  Ingo Wegener,et al.  Fitness Landscapes Based on Sorting and Shortest Paths Problems , 2002, PPSN.

[15]  Frank Neumann.  Expected runtimes of evolutionary algorithms for the Eulerian cycle problem , 2004, IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[16]  Frank Neumann,et al.  Comparison of simple diversity mechanisms on plateau functions , 2009, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[17]  Jack Edmonds,et al.  Matching, Euler tours and the Chinese postman , 1973, Math. Program..

[18]  Bryant A. Julstrom,et al.  Biased mutation operators for subgraph-selection problems , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[19]  Philippe Lacomme,et al.  A Genetic Algorithm for the Capacitated Arc Routing Problem and Its Extensions , 2001, EvoWorkshops.

[20]  Frank Neumann,et al.  Speeding Up Evolutionary Algorithms Through Restricted Mutation Operators , 2006, PPSN.

[21]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  Experimental Supplements to the Theoretical Analysis of EAs on Problems from Combinatorial Optimization , 2004, PPSN.