Lower Bounds on the Runtime of Crossover-Based Algorithms via Decoupling and Family Graphs

The runtime analysis of evolutionary algorithms using crossover as search operator has recently produced remarkable results indicating benefits and drawbacks of crossover and illustrating its working principles. Virtually all these results are restricted to upper bounds on the running time of the crossover-based algorithms. This work addresses this lack of lower bounds and rigorously bounds the optimization time of simple algorithms using uniform crossover on the search space  $$\{0,1\}^n$$ from below via two novel techniques called decoupling and family graphs. First, a simple steady-state crossover-based evolutionary algorithm without selection pressure is analyzed and shown that after $$O(\mu \log \mu )$$ generations, bit positions are sampled almost independently with marginal probabilities corresponding to the fraction of one-bits at the corresponding position in the initial population. In the presence of weak selective pressure induced by the probabilistic application of tournament selection, it is demonstrated that the inheritance probability at an arbitrary locus quickly approaches a uniform distribution over the initial population up to additive factors that depend on the effect of selection. Afterwards, the algorithm is analyzed by a novel generalization of the family tree technique originally introduced for mutation-only EAs. Using these so-called family graphs, almost tight lower bounds on the optimization time on the OneMax benchmark function are shown.

[1]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  On benefits and drawbacks of aging strategies for randomized search heuristics , 2011, Theor. Comput. Sci..

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

[3]  Per Kristian Lehre,et al.  On the Impact of Mutation-Selection Balance on the Runtime of Evolutionary Algorithms , 2012, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[4]  Carsten Witt,et al.  Runtime Analysis of the ( μ +1) EA on Simple Pseudo-Boolean Functions , 2006 .

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

[6]  A. Sinclair,et al.  A computational view of population genetics , 1998 .

[7]  Benjamin Doerr,et al.  Drift analysis , 2011, GECCO.

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

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

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

[11]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  On the Analysis of Evolutionary Algorithms - A Proof That Crossover Really Can Help , 1999 .

[12]  Jens Jägersküpper,et al.  Rigorous runtime analysis of a (μ+1)ES for the sphere function , 2005, GECCO '05.

[13]  Pietro Simone Oliveto,et al.  Improved time complexity analysis of the Simple Genetic Algorithm , 2015, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[14]  Benjamin Doerr,et al.  A tight runtime analysis for the (μ + λ) EA , 2018, GECCO.

[15]  C. Witt Population size vs. runtime of a simple EA , 2003, The 2003 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2003. CEC '03..

[16]  Carsten Witt,et al.  Domino convergence: why one should hill-climb on linear functions , 2018, GECCO.

[17]  Josip Pecaric,et al.  On the converse Jensen inequality , 2012, Appl. Math. Comput..

[18]  Johannes Lengler,et al.  A General Dichotomy of Evolutionary Algorithms on Monotone Functions , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[19]  H. Geiringer On the Probability Theory of Linkage in Mendelian Heredity , 1944 .

[20]  Benjamin Doerr,et al.  Improved analysis methods for crossover-based algorithms , 2009, GECCO.

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

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

[23]  Frank Neumann,et al.  More Effective Crossover Operators for the All-Pairs Shortest Path Problem , 2010, PPSN.

[24]  Yang Yu,et al.  An analysis on recombination in multi-objective evolutionary optimization , 2013, Artif. Intell..

[25]  Pietro Simone Oliveto,et al.  On the effectiveness of crossover for migration in parallel evolutionary algorithms , 2011, GECCO '11.

[26]  Andrew M. Sutton,et al.  Lower Bounds on the Runtime of Crossover-Based Algorithms via Decoupling and Family Graphs , 2019, Algorithmica.

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

[28]  Yann Ollivier,et al.  Rate of convergence of crossover operators , 2003, Random Struct. Algorithms.

[29]  Avi Wigderson,et al.  Quadratic Dynamical Systems (Preliminary Version) , 1992, FOCS 1992.

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

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

[32]  Dirk Sudholt,et al.  The impact of parametrization in memetic evolutionary algorithms , 2009, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[33]  Per Kristian Lehre,et al.  Negative Drift in Populations , 2010, PPSN.

[34]  Dirk Sudholt,et al.  Update Strength in EDAs and ACO: How to Avoid Genetic Drift , 2016, GECCO.

[35]  Avi Wigderson,et al.  Quadratic dynamical systems , 1992, Proceedings., 33rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[36]  T. Nagylaki The evolution of multilocus systems under weak selection. , 1993, Genetics.

[37]  Pietro Simone Oliveto,et al.  Analysis of population-based evolutionary algorithms for the vertex cover problem , 2008, 2008 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence).