Maximizing Drift Is Not Optimal for Solving OneMax
Author(s) -
Nathan Buskulic,
Carola Doerr
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
evolutionary computation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.732
H-Index - 82
eISSN - 1530-9304
pISSN - 1063-6560
DOI - 10.1162/evco_a_00290
Subject(s) - maximization , mathematics , unary operation , resampling , evolutionary algorithm , mutation , mathematical optimization , fraction (chemistry) , operator (biology) , function (biology) , value (mathematics) , affine transformation , combinatorics , algorithm , statistics , biology , genetics , pure mathematics , chemistry , organic chemistry , repressor , transcription factor , gene
It seems very intuitive that for the maximization of the OneMax problem Om(x):=∑i=1nxi the best that an elitist unary unbiased search algorithm can do is to store a best so far solution, and to modify it with the operator that yields the best possible expected progress in function value. This assumption has been implicitly used in several empirical works. In Doerr et al. (2020), it was formally proven that this approach is indeed almost optimal. In this work, we prove that drift maximization is not optimal. More precisely, we show that for most fitness levels between n/2 and 2n/3 the optimal mutation strengths are larger than the drift-maximizing ones. This implies that the optimal RLS is more risk-affine than the variant maximizing the stepwise expected progress. We show similar results for the mutation rates of the classic (1+1) Evolutionary Algorithm (EA) and its resampling variant, the (1+1) EA>0. As a result of independent interest we show that the optimal mutation strengths, unlike the drift-maximizing ones, can be even.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom