Mario Alejandro Hevia Fajardo

arXiv2022

Self-Adjusting Population Sizes for Non-Elitist Evolutionary Algorithms: Why Success Rates Matter

Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) are general-purpose optimisers that come with several parameters like the sizes of parent and offspring populations or the mutation rate. It is well known that the performance of EAs may depend drastically on these parameters. Recent theoretical studies have shown that self-adjusting parameter control mechanisms that tune parameters during the algorithm run can provably outperform the best static parameters in EAs on discrete problems. However, the majority of these studies concerned elitist EAs and we do not have a clear answer on whether the same mechanisms can be applied for non-elitist EAs. We study one of the best-known parameter control mechanisms, the one-fifth success rule, to control the offspring population size $λ$ in the non-elitist $(1,λ)$ EA. It is known that the $(1,λ)$ EA has a sharp threshold with respect to the choice of $λ$ where the expected runtime on the benchmark function OneMax changes from polynomial to exponential time. Hence, it is not clear whether parameter control mechanisms are able to find and maintain suitable values of $λ$. For OneMax we show that the answer crucially depends on the success rate $s$ (i.\,e.\ a one-$(s+1)$-th success rule). We prove that, if the success rate is appropriately small, the self-adjusting $(1,λ)$ EA optimises OneMax in $O(n)$ expected generations and $O(n \log n)$ expected evaluations, the best possible runtime for any unary unbiased black-box algorithm. A small success rate is crucial: we also show that if the success rate is too large, the algorithm has an exponential runtime on OneMax and other functions with similar characteristics.

cs.NE↗

arXiv2022

Hard Problems are Easier for Success-based Parameter Control

Recent works showed that simple success-based rules for self-adjusting parameters in evolutionary algorithms (EAs) can match or outperform the best fixed parameters on discrete problems. Non-elitism in a (1,$λ$) EA combined with a self-adjusting offspring population size $λ$ outperforms common EAs on the multimodal Cliff problem. However, it was shown that this only holds if the success rate $s$ that governs self-adjustment is small enough. Otherwise, even on OneMax, the self-adjusting (1,$λ$) EA stagnates on an easy slope, where frequent successes drive down the offspring population size. We show that self-adjustment works as intended in the absence of easy slopes. We define everywhere hard functions, for which successes are never easy to find and show that the self-adjusting (1,$λ$) EA is robust with respect to the choice of success rates $s$. We give a general fitness-level upper bound on the number of evaluations and show that the expected number of generations is at most $O(d + \log(1/p_{\min}))$ where $d$ is the number of non-optimal fitness values and $p_{\min}$ is the smallest probability of finding an improvement from a non-optimal search point. We discuss implications for the everywhere hard function LeadingOnes and a new class OneMaxBlocks of everywhere hard functions with tunable difficulty.

cs.NE↗