Towards a More Practice-Aware Runtime Analysis of Evolutionary Algorithms

TL;DR

This paper proposes a practice-aware extension to the runtime analysis of evolutionary algorithms, incorporating implementation details and fitness evolution over time to improve relevance and understanding of EA performance.

Contribution

It introduces a more realistic runtime analysis framework that accounts for implementation discrepancies and fitness progression, bridging the gap between theory and practice.

Findings

Adjusted runtime estimates to include implementation-specific costs.

Extended runtime analysis to include fitness evolution over time.

Proved the greedy (2+1) GA outperforms unary unbiased black-box algorithms on OneMax.

Abstract

Theory of evolutionary computation (EC) aims at providing mathematically founded statements about the performance of evolutionary algorithms (EAs). The predominant topic in this research domain is runtime analysis, which studies the time it takes a given EA to solve a given optimization problem. Runtime analysis has witnessed significant advances in the last couple of years, allowing us to compute precise runtime estimates for several EAs and several problems. Runtime analysis is, however (and unfortunately!), often judged by practitioners to be of little relevance for real applications of EAs. Several reasons for this claim exist. We address two of them in this present work: (1) EA implementations often differ from their vanilla pseudocode description, which, in turn, typically form the basis for runtime analysis. To close the resulting gap between empirically observed and theoretically derived performance estimates, we therefore suggest to take this discrepancy into account in the mathematical analysis and to adjust, for example, the cost assigned to the evaluation of search points that equal one of their direct parents (provided that this is easy to verify as is the case in almost all standard EAs). (2) Most runtime analysis results make statements about the expected time to reach an optimal solution (and possibly the distribution of this optimization time) only, thus explicitly or implicitly neglecting the importance of understanding how the function values evolve over time. We suggest to extend runtime statements to runtime profiles, covering the expected time needed to reach points of intermediate fitness values. As a direct consequence, we obtain a result showing that the greedy (2+1) GA of Sudholt [GECCO 2012] outperforms any unary unbiased black-box algorithm on OneMax.