A key property underlying the success of evolutionary algorithms (EAs) is their global search behavior, which allows the algorithms to jump' from a current state to other parts of the search space, thereby avoiding to get stuck in local optima. This property is obtained through a random choice of the radius at which offspring are sampled from previously evaluated solutions. It is well known that, thanks to this global search behavior, the probability that an EA using standard bit mutation finds a global optimum of an arbitrary function @math tends to one as the number of function evaluations grows. This advantage over heuristics using a fixed search radius, however, comes at the cost of using non-optimal step sizes also in those regimes in which the optimal rate is stable for a long time. This downside results in significant performance losses for many standard benchmark problems. We introduce in this work a simple way to interpolate between the random global search of EAs and their deterministic counterparts which sample from a fixed radius only. To this end, we introduce , in which the binomial choice of the search radius is replaced by a normal distribution. Normalized standard bit mutation allows a straightforward way to control its variance, and hence the degree of randomness involved. We experiment with a self-adjusting choice of this variance, and demonstrate its effectiveness for the two classic benchmark problems LeadingOnes and OneMax. Our work thereby also touches a largely ignored question in discrete evolutionary computation: multi-dimensional parameter control.
As reasoned above, normalized standard bit mutation offers an elegant way to interpolate between deterministic mutation strengths and regular standard bit mutation, thus showing that Randomized Local Search (RLS) variants with their deterministic search radii and the (1+1) EA with mutation rate @math are essentially just different instantiations of the same meta-algorithm. Similar results also extend to population-based @math EAs. Note that normalized standard bit mutation also allows other degrees of randomization, thereby offering a wide range for further experimentation. In this context we note that for the special case of standard RLS (i.e., the greedy (1+1) hill climber that flips in each iteration exactly one uniformly chosen bit) a similar meta-model allowing to interpolate between the (1+1) EA and RLS is the (1+1) EA @math introduced in @cite_2 @cite_5 . This model, however, is much less flexible, and does not allow, for example, deterministic search radii greater than one.
@cite_5 @cite_2
2914741526 2520275545 2109000177 1892716203
We study the well-known black-box optimisation algorithm (1+1)-EA on a novel type of noise model. In our noise model, the fitness function is linear with positive weights, but the absolute values of the weights may fluctuate in each round. Thus in every state, the fitness function indicates that one-bits are preferred over zero-bits. In particular, hillclimbing heuristics should be able to find the optimum fast. We show that the (1+1)-EA indeed finds the optimum in time @math if the mutation parameter is @math for a constant @math However, we also show that for @math the (1+1)-EA needs superpolynomial time to find the optimum. Thus the choice of mutation parameter is critical even for optimisation tasks in which there is a clear path to the the optimum. A similar threshold phenomenon has recently been shown for noise-free monotone fitness functions. The ( @math 1+ź) EA with mutation probability c n, where @math c>0 is an arbitrary constant, is studied for the classical OneMax function. Its expected optimization time is analyzed exactly (up to lower order terms) as a function of c and @math ź. It turns out that 1 n is the only optimal mutation probability if @math ź=o(lnnlnlnn lnlnlnn), which is the cut-off point for linear speed-up. However, if @math ź is above this cut-off point then the standard mutation probability 1 n is no longer the only optimal choice. Instead, the expected number of generations is (up to lower order terms) independent of c, irrespectively of it being less than 1 or greater. The theoretical results are obtained by a careful study of order statistics of the binomial distribution and variable drift theorems for upper and lower bounds. Experimental supplements shed light on the optimal mutation probability for small problem sizes. Extending previous analyses on function classes like linear functions, we analyze how the simple 1+1 evolutionary algorithm optimizes pseudo-Boolean functions that are strictly monotonic. These functions have the property that whenever only 0-bits are changed to 1, then the objective value strictly increases. Contrary to what one would expect, not all of these functions are easy to optimize. The choice of the constant c in the mutation probability pn=c n can make a decisive difference. We show that if c iterations. For c=1, we can still prove an upper bound of On3 2. However, for , we present a strictly monotonic function such that the 1+1 EA with overwhelming probability needs iterations to find the optimum. This is the first time that we observe that a constant factor change of the mutation probability changes the runtime by more than a constant factor. Extending previous analyses on function classes like linear functions, we analyze how the simple (1+1) evolutionary algorithm optimizes pseudo-Boolean functions that are strictly monotone. Contrary to what one would expect, not all of these functions are easy to optimize. The choice of the constant c in the mutation probability p(n) = c n can make a decisive difference. We show that if c > 1, then the (1+1) EA finds the optimum of every such function in Θ(n log n) iterations. For c = 1, we can still prove an upper bound of O(n3 2). However, for c > 33, we present a strictly monotone function such that the (1+1) EA with overwhelming probability does not find the optimum within 2Ω(n) iterations. This is the first time that we observe that a constant factor change of the mutation probability changes the run-time by more than constant factors.