Optimizing Linear Functions with Randomized Search Heuristics - The Robustness of Mutation

The analysis of randomized search heuristics on classes of functions is fundamental for the understanding of the underlying stochastic process and the development of suitable proof techniques. Recently, remarkable progress has been made in bounding the expected optimization time of the simple (1+1) EA on the class of linear functions. We improve the best known bound in this setting from (1.39 +o(1))en lnn to en lnn +O(n) in expectation and with high probability, which is tight up to lower-order terms. Moreover, upper and lower bounds for arbitrary mutations probabilities p are derived, which imply expected polynomial optimization time as long as p = O((lnn)/n) and which are tight if p = c/n for a constant c. As a consequence, the standard mutation probability p = 1/n is optimal for all linear functions, and the (1+1) EA is found to be an optimal mutation-based algorithm. Furthermore, the algorithm turns out to be surprisingly robust since large neighborhood explored by the mutation operator does not disrupt the search. 1998 ACM Subject Classification F.2 [Analysis of algorithms and problem complexity]

[1]  B. Hajek Hitting-time and occupation-time bounds implied by drift analysis with applications , 1982, Advances in Applied Probability.

[2]  Yoo Yoon Jae,et al.  On the Analysis , 2009 .

[3]  Xin Yao,et al.  Drift analysis and average time complexity of evolutionary algorithms , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[4]  Russ Bubley,et al.  Randomized algorithms , 1995, CSUR.

[5]  Benjamin Doerr,et al.  Multiplicative drift analysis , 2010, GECCO.

[6]  Dirk Sudholt,et al.  General Lower Bounds for the Running Time of Evolutionary Algorithms , 2010, PPSN.

[7]  Ingo Wegener,et al.  On the Optimization of Monotone Polynomials by Simple Randomized Search Heuristics , 2005, Combinatorics, Probability and Computing.

[8]  Frank Neumann,et al.  Bioinspired computation in combinatorial optimization: algorithms and their computational complexity , 2012, GECCO '12.

[9]  Leslie Ann Goldberg,et al.  Adaptive Drift Analysis , 2010, PPSN.

[10]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Optimal Mutation Rates in Genetic Search , 1993, ICGA.

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

[12]  Benjamin Doerr,et al.  Drift analysis and linear functions revisited , 2010, IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[13]  Jens Jägersküpper,et al.  A Blend of Markov-Chain and Drift Analysis , 2008, PPSN.

[14]  I. Wegener,et al.  Design and Management of Complex Technical Processes and Systems by means of Computational Intelligence Methods A Natural and Simple Function Which is Hard For All Evolutionary Algorithms , 2007 .

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

[16]  Ingo Wegener,et al.  Methods for the Analysis of Evolutionary Algorithms on Pseudo-Boolean Functions , 2003 .

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

[18]  Mahmoud Fouz,et al.  Quasirandom evolutionary algorithms , 2010, GECCO '10.

[19]  Rajeev Motwani,et al.  Randomized algorithms , 1996, CSUR.

[20]  Xin Yao,et al.  A study of drift analysis for estimating computation time of evolutionary algorithms , 2004, Natural Computing.

[21]  Carsten Witt,et al.  Bioinspired Computation in Combinatorial Optimization , 2010, Bioinspired Computation in Combinatorial Optimization.

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

[23]  Ingo Wegener,et al.  On the analysis of a simple evolutionary algorithm on quadratic pseudo-boolean functions , 2005, J. Discrete Algorithms.

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