Co-Optimization Free Lunches: Tractability of Optimal Black-Box Algorithms for Maximizing Expected Utility

Co-optimization problems often involve settings in which the quality (utility) of a potential solution is dependent on the scenario within which it is evaluated, and many such scenarios exist. Maximizing expected utility is simply the goal of finding the potential solution whose expected utility value over all possible scenarios is best. Such problems are often approached using coevolutionary algorithms. We are interested in the design of generally well-performing black-box algorithms for this problem, that is, algorithms which have access to the utility function only via input–output queries. We research this matter by focusing on three main questions: 1) are some algorithms strictly better than others when judged in aggregation over all possible instances of the problem? that is, is there “free lunch”? 2) do optimal algorithms exist? and 3) if so, do they have a tractable implementation? For a specific expected-utility maximization context, involving several assumptions and performance choices, we answer all three questions affirmatively and concretely: we provide examples of free lunch; we describe the general operation of optimal algorithms; we characterize situations when this operation has a very simple and efficient implementation, situations when the computational cost can be significantly reduced, and situations when tractability of optimal algorithms might be out of reach.

[1]  F. Alajaji,et al.  c ○ Copyright by , 1998 .

[2]  Travis C. Service Unbiased coevolutionary solution concepts , 2009, FOGA.

[3]  Edwin D. de Jong,et al.  Coevolutionary Principles , 2012, Handbook of Natural Computing.

[4]  Kenneth A. De Jong,et al.  Monotonicity versus performance in co-optimization , 2009, FOGA '09.

[5]  Jordan B. Pollack,et al.  Emergent geometric organization and informative dimensions in coevolutionary algorithms , 2007 .

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

[7]  Tor Lattimore,et al.  Free Lunch for optimisation under the universal distribution , 2014, 2014 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC).

[8]  David H. Wolpert,et al.  No free lunch theorems for optimization , 1997, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[9]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  Black-Box Complexity for Bounding the Performance of Randomized Search Heuristics , 2014, Theory and Principled Methods for the Design of Metaheuristics.

[10]  Elena Popovici,et al.  On the practicality of optimal output mechanisms for co-optimization algorithms , 2011, FOGA '11.

[11]  W. Daniel Hillis,et al.  Co-evolving parasites improve simulated evolution as an optimization procedure , 1990 .

[12]  G. Anil A Fitness Function Elimination Theory For Blackbox Optimization And Problem Class Learning , 2012 .

[13]  Daniel R. Tauritz,et al.  Free lunches in pareto coevolution , 2009, GECCO '09.

[14]  Gerald Tesauro,et al.  Temporal difference learning and TD-Gammon , 1995, CACM.

[15]  Daniel R. Tauritz,et al.  Co-optimization algorithms , 2008, GECCO '08.

[16]  Richard S. Sutton,et al.  Introduction to Reinforcement Learning , 1998 .

[17]  Daniel R. Tauritz,et al.  A no-free-lunch framework for coevolution , 2008, GECCO '08.

[18]  Edwin D. de Jong,et al.  The MaxSolve algorithm for coevolution , 2005, GECCO '05.

[19]  David H. Wolpert,et al.  Coevolutionary free lunches , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[20]  Elena Popovici,et al.  A framework for co-optimization algorithm performance and its application to worst-case optimization , 2015, Theor. Comput. Sci..