Tight Bounds on the Optimization Time of the (1+1) EA on Linear Functions

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 $(1.39+o(1))en\ln n$ to $en\ln n+O(n)$ 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 $p=O((\ln n)/n)$ 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. The proofs are based on adaptive drift functions and the recent multiplicative drift theorem.

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

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

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

[4]  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 .

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

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

[7]  I. Olkin,et al.  Inequalities: Theory of Majorization and Its Applications , 1980 .

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

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

[10]  Frank Neumann,et al.  Bioinspired computation in combinatorial optimization: algorithms and their computational complexity , 2010, GECCO '12.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[17]  Leslie Ann Goldberg,et al.  Adaptive Drift Analysis , 2011, Algorithmica.

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

[19]  Jens Jägersküpper,et al.  Algorithmic analysis of a basic evolutionary algorithm for continuous optimization , 2007, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[20]  Benjamin Doerr,et al.  Multiplicative Drift Analysis , 2010, GECCO '10.

[21]  Christopher R. Stephens,et al.  "Optimal" mutation rates for genetic search , 2006, GECCO.

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

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

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

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