Benchmarking a $(\mu+\lambda)$ Genetic Algorithm with Configurable Crossover Probability

We investigate a family of $(\mu+\lambda)$ Genetic Algorithms (GAs) which creates offspring either from mutation or by recombining two randomly chosen parents. By scaling the crossover probability, we can thus interpolate from a fully mutation-only algorithm towards a fully crossover-based GA. We analyze, by empirical means, how the performance depends on the interplay of population size and the crossover probability. Our comparison on 25 pseudo-Boolean optimization problems reveals an advantage of crossover-based configurations on several easy optimization tasks, whereas the picture for more complex optimization problems is rather mixed. Moreover, we observe that the ``fast'' mutation scheme with its are power-law distributed mutation strengths outperforms standard bit mutation on complex optimization tasks when it is combined with crossover, but performs worse in the absence of crossover. We then take a closer look at the surprisingly good performance of the crossover-based $(\mu+\lambda)$ GAs on the well-known LeadingOnes benchmark problem. We observe that the optimal crossover probability increases with increasing population size $\mu$. At the same time, it decreases with increasing problem dimension, indicating that the advantages of the crossover are not visible in the asymptotic view classically applied in runtime analysis. We therefore argue that a mathematical investigation for fixed dimensions might help us observe effects which are not visible when focusing exclusively on asymptotic performance bounds.

[1]  Per Kristian Lehre,et al.  Black-Box Search by Unbiased Variation , 2010, GECCO '10.

[2]  C. D. Gelatt,et al.  Optimization by Simulated Annealing , 1983, Science.

[3]  Ruhul A. Sarker,et al.  Multi-operator based evolutionary algorithms for solving constrained optimization problems , 2011, Comput. Oper. Res..

[4]  Per Kristian Lehre,et al.  Crossover can be constructive when computing unique input–output sequences , 2011, Soft Comput..

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

[6]  Benjamin Doerr,et al.  Fast genetic algorithms , 2017, GECCO.

[7]  Maxim Buzdalov,et al.  Evaluation of heavy-tailed mutation operator on maximum flow test generation problem , 2017, GECCO.

[8]  L. Darrell Whitley,et al.  The massively parallel mixing genetic algorithm for the traveling salesman problem , 2019, GECCO.

[9]  Benjamin Doerr,et al.  Crossover can provably be useful in evolutionary computation , 2012, Theor. Comput. Sci..

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

[11]  Carola Doerr,et al.  Maximizing Drift Is Not Optimal for Solving OneMax , 2019, Evolutionary Computation.

[12]  Kenneth Alan De Jong,et al.  An analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems. , 1975 .

[13]  Dirk Sudholt,et al.  How Crossover Speeds up Building Block Assembly in Genetic Algorithms , 2014, Evolutionary Computation.

[14]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[15]  Ingo Wegener,et al.  Real royal road functions--where crossover provably is essential , 2001, Discret. Appl. Math..

[16]  Dirk Sudholt,et al.  A New Method for Lower Bounds on the Running Time of Evolutionary Algorithms , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[17]  Dirk Sudholt,et al.  How crossover helps in pseudo-boolean optimization , 2011, GECCO '11.

[18]  Tadahiko MURATA,et al.  Positive and negative combination effects of crossover and mutation operators in sequencing problems , 1996, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[19]  Benjamin Doerr,et al.  From black-box complexity to designing new genetic algorithms , 2015, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[20]  Carola Doerr,et al.  A Simple Proof for the Usefulness of Crossover in Black-Box Optimization , 2018, PPSN.

[21]  Kenneth A. De Jong,et al.  Design and Management of Complex Technical Processes and Systems by Means of Computational Intelligence Methods on the Choice of the Offspring Population Size in Evolutionary Algorithms on the Choice of the Offspring Population Size in Evolutionary Algorithms , 2004 .

[22]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  A building-block royal road where crossover is provably essential , 2007, GECCO '07.

[23]  John H. Holland,et al.  When will a Genetic Algorithm Outperform Hill Climbing , 1993, NIPS.

[24]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Evolutionary algorithms in theory and practice - evolution strategies, evolutionary programming, genetic algorithms , 1996 .

[25]  Dogan Corus,et al.  Standard Steady State Genetic Algorithms Can Hillclimb Faster Than Mutation-Only Evolutionary Algorithms , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

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

[27]  Dirk Sudholt,et al.  Crossover is provably essential for the Ising model on trees , 2005, GECCO '05.

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

[29]  Hao Wang,et al.  Towards a theory-guided benchmarking suite for discrete black-box optimization heuristics: profiling (1 + λ) EA variants on onemax and leadingones , 2018, GECCO.