Algorithmic analysis of a basic evolutionary algorithm for continuous optimization

In practical optimization, applying evolutionary algorithms has nearly become a matter of course. Their theoretical analysis, however, is far behind practice. So far, theorems on the runtime are limited to discrete search spaces; results for continuous search spaces are limited to convergence theory or even rely on validation by experiments, which is unsatisfactory from a theoretical point of view. The simplest, or most basic, evolutionary algorithms use a population consisting of only one individual and use random mutations as the only search operator. Here the so-called (1+1) evolution strategy for minimization in R n is investigated when it uses isotropically distributed mutation vectors. In particular, so-called Gaussian mutations are analyzed when the so-called 1/5-rule is used for their adaptation. Obviously, a reasonable analysis must respect the function to be minimized, and furthermore, the runtime must be measured with respect to the approximation error. A first algorithmic analysis of how the runtime depends on n, the dimension of the search space, is presented. This analysis covers all unimodal functions that are monotone with respect to the distance from the optimum. It turns out that, in the scenario considered, Gaussian mutations in combination with the 1/5-rule indeed ensure asymptotically optimal runtime; namely, Θ(n) steps/function evaluations are necessary and sufficient to halve the approximation error.

[1]  Ronald L. Graham,et al.  Concrete Mathematics, a Foundation for Computer Science , 1991, The Mathematical Gazette.

[2]  Hans-Paul Schwefel,et al.  Evolution and Optimum Seeking: The Sixth Generation , 1993 .

[3]  Ingo Rechenberg,et al.  Evolutionsstrategie '94 , 1994, Werkstatt Bionik und Evolutionstechnik.

[4]  John Darzentas,et al.  Problem Complexity and Method Efficiency in Optimization , 1983 .

[5]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  A New Framework for the Valuation of Algorithms for Black-Box Optimization , 2002, FOGA.

[6]  Jens Jägersküpper,et al.  Analysis of a Simple Evolutionary Algorithm for Minimization in Euclidean Spaces , 2003, ICALP.

[7]  Hans-Georg Beyer,et al.  The Theory of Evolution Strategies , 2001, Natural Computing Series.

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

[9]  Hans-Paul Schwefel,et al.  Evolution and optimum seeking , 1995, Sixth-generation computer technology series.

[10]  Olivier François,et al.  Global convergence for evolution strategies in spherical problems: some simple proofs and difficulties , 2003, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[11]  Ingo Wegener,et al.  Fitness Landscapes Based on Sorting and Shortest Paths Problems , 2002, PPSN.

[12]  Ingo Rechenberg,et al.  Evolutionsstrategie : Optimierung technischer Systeme nach Prinzipien der biologischen Evolution , 1973 .

[13]  G. Arfken Mathematical Methods for Physicists , 1967 .

[14]  Ingo Wegener,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms and the Maximum Matching Problem , 2003, STACS.

[15]  Ingo Wegener,et al.  Towards a Theory of Randomized Search Heuristics , 2003, MFCS.

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

[17]  Ingo Wegener,et al.  Theoretical Aspects of Evolutionary Algorithms , 2001, ICALP.