On the Impact of Mutation-Selection Balance on the Runtime of Evolutionary Algorithms

The interplay between mutation and selection plays a fundamental role in the behavior of evolutionary algorithms (EAs). However, this interplay is still not completely understood. This paper presents a rigorous runtime analysis of a non-elitist population-based EA that uses the linear ranking selection mechanism. The analysis focuses on how the balance between parameter η, controlling the selection pressure in linear ranking, and parameter χ controlling the bit-wise mutation rate, impacts the runtime of the algorithm. The results point out situations where a correct balance between selection pressure and mutation rate is essential for finding the optimal solution in polynomial time. In particular, it is shown that there exist fitness functions which can only be solved in polynomial time if the ratio between parameters η and χ is within a narrow critical interval, and where a small change in this ratio can increase the runtime exponentially. Furthermore, it is shown quantitatively how the appropriate parameter choice depends on the characteristics of the fitness function. In addition to the original results on the runtime of EAs, this paper also introduces a very useful analytical tool, i.e., multi-type branching processes, to the runtime analysis of non-elitist population-based EAs.

[1]  Tobias Storch,et al.  On the Choice of the Parent Population Size , 2008, Evolutionary Computation.

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

[3]  Tatsuya Motoki,et al.  Calculating the Expected Loss of Diversity of Selection Schemes , 2002, Evolutionary Computation.

[4]  Carsten Witt,et al.  Population size versus runtime of a simple evolutionary algorithm , 2008, Theor. Comput. Sci..

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

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

[7]  A. E. Eiben,et al.  On Evolutionary Exploration and Exploitation , 1998, Fundam. Informaticae.

[8]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Selective Pressure in Evolutionary Algorithms: A Characterization of Selection Mechanisms , 1994, International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[9]  Frank Neumann,et al.  Rigorous analyses of fitness-proportional selection for optimizing linear functions , 2008, GECCO '08.

[10]  Erick Cantú-Paz,et al.  Order statistics and selection methods of evolutionary algorithms , 2002, Inf. Process. Lett..

[11]  L. Darrell Whitley,et al.  The GENITOR Algorithm and Selection Pressure: Why Rank-Based Allocation of Reproductive Trials is Best , 1989, ICGA.

[12]  Benjamin Doerr,et al.  Refined runtime analysis of a basic ant colony optimization algorithm , 2007, 2007 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[13]  Ingo Wegener,et al.  Simulated Annealing Beats Metropolis in Combinatorial Optimization , 2005, ICALP.

[14]  Heinz Mühlenbein,et al.  Predictive Models for the Breeder Genetic Algorithm I. Continuous Parameter Optimization , 1993, Evolutionary Computation.

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

[16]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  A Comparison of Selection Schemes Used in Evolutionary Algorithms , 1996, Evolutionary Computation.

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

[18]  Frank Neumann,et al.  Design and Management of Complex Technical Processes and Systems by Means of Computational Intelligence Methods Runtime Analysis of a Simple Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm Runtime Analysis of a Simple Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm , 2022 .

[19]  Eugene Seneta,et al.  Non‐Negative Matrices , 1975 .

[20]  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 .

[21]  Xin Yao,et al.  From an individual to a population: an analysis of the first hitting time of population-based evolutionary algorithms , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[22]  P. Jagers,et al.  Branching Processes: Variation, Growth, and Extinction of Populations , 2005 .

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

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

[25]  Dirk Sudholt,et al.  On the runtime analysis of the 1-ANT ACO algorithm , 2007, GECCO '07.

[26]  Xin Yao,et al.  A New Approach for Analyzing Average Time Complexity of Population-Based Evolutionary Algorithms on Unimodal Problems , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics).

[27]  L. Y. Kolotilina.  Bounds and Inequalities for the Perron Root of a Nonnegative Matrix , 2004 .

[28]  Pietro Simone Oliveto,et al.  Theoretical analysis of fitness-proportional selection: landscapes and efficiency , 2009, GECCO.

[29]  Henryk Minc,et al.  On the Maximal Eigenvector of a Positive Matrix , 1970 .

[30]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A Comparative Analysis of Selection Schemes Used in Genetic Algorithms , 1990, FOGA.

[31]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Evolutionary Optimization , 2012, Variants of Evolutionary Algorithms for Real-World Applications.