Selection Hyper-heuristics Can Automatically Adjust the Learning Period to Optimally Solve Pseudo-Boolean Problems

The Random Gradient hyper-heuristic was recently shown to be able to learn the optimal neighbourhood size when optimizing the LeadingOnes benchmark via the Randomised Local Search (RLS) meta-heuristic. However, for this to happen, a learning period of a certain length $τ$ had to be used, differently from classic hyper-heuristics, which change their behaviour based on the success of only the previous iteration. In this paper, we show how to automatically set this new parameter value, relieving the user from the non-trivial task of controlling this novel algorithm parameter. We prove that the resulting hyper-heuristic selects the optimal neighbourhood size in a $1-o(1)$ fraction of the iterations and, consequently, optimises the LeadingOnes benchmark in the best possible time (apart from lower-order terms) achievable with these neighborhood sizes.

A Fresh Look at Lamarckian Evolution and the Baldwin Effect

Baldwinian and Lamarckian evolution have existed for a long time in evolutionary algorithms (EAs) without ever dominating the academic literature or practical applications. In this work, we use modern empirical and theoretical methods to revisit Lamarckian and Baldwinian evolution and rigorously compare them with the generic Darwinian evolution. On the empirical side, we run a comprehensive suite of experiments on graphs from six different datasets from the recent GraphBench benchmark on Maximum Independent Set and Maximum Cut problems. Our results show that Baldwinian and Lamarckian evolution consistently outperform Darwinian evolution, confirming the great potential of local search augmented evolutionary algorithms. Notably, in the great majority of cases, all EAs outperform recent deep learning baselines and approach the performance of highly specialised heuristic and exact solvers. We furthermore report a high-performing set of generalist parameters for all studied evolution types that we hope will be of use to practitioners in future. On the theoretical side, we extend the existing Deceptive Leading Block benchmark to arbitrary block length and use tools from modern theoretical runtime analysis to prove upper and lower bounds on the expected runtime. For block lengths greater than two, Baldwinian evolution is asymptotically faster than Lamarckian which is asymptotically faster than Darwinian evolution. When accounting for the cost of the local search procedure in fitness evaluations, the ordering depends on the implementation with Baldwinian evolution staying fastest from small block lengths onwards, explaining its strong empirical performance.

First Mathematical Runtime Analyses of Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Valued Decision Variables

Problems defined on binary decision spaces have been intensively studied in the theory of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs). In contrast, no mathematical runtime analyses exist so far for MOEAs dealing with decision variables that take a finite number $r > 2$ of values, despite the prevalence of such problems in practice. In this work, we begin to fill this research gap. We analyze how the classic SEMO algorithm with unit-strength local mutation computes the Pareto front of an $r$-valued counterpart of the classic \oneminmax benchmark. For the expected number of function evaluations until the Pareto front is covered by the population of this MOEA, we prove an upper bound of $O(n^2 r^2 \log n)$ and a near-tight lower bound of $Ω(n^2 r (r + \log n))$. We can close the small remaining gap between these two bounds by considering a variant of the algorithm that accepts only strictly better solutions; for this variant, we show an upper bound of $O(n^2 r (r + \log n))$, matching our lower bound (which also holds for this variant). Our results suggest that classic MOEAs encounter no significant additional difficulties when dealing with multi-valued decision variables. However, significantly more advanced tools may be required to obtain tight bounds for algorithms with more complex population dynamics.

Position: Don't be Afraid of Over-Smoothing And Over-Squashing

Over-smoothing and over-squashing have been extensively studied in the literature on Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) over the past years. We challenge this prevailing focus in GNN research, arguing that these phenomena are less critical for practical applications than assumed. We suggest that performance decreases often stem from uninformative receptive fields rather than over-smoothing. We support this position with extensive experiments on several standard benchmark datasets, demonstrating that accuracy and over-smoothing are mostly uncorrelated and that optimal model depths remain small even with mitigation techniques, thus highlighting the negligible role of over-smoothing. Similarly, we challenge that over-squashing is always detrimental in practical applications. Instead, we posit that the distribution of relevant information over the graph frequently factorises and is often localised within a small k-hop neighbourhood, questioning the necessity of jointly observing entire receptive fields or engaging in an extensive search for long-range interactions. The results of our experiments show that architectural interventions designed to mitigate over-squashing fail to yield significant performance gains. This position paper advocates for a paradigm shift in theoretical research, urging a diligent analysis of learning tasks and datasets using statistics that measure the underlying distribution of label-relevant information to better understand their localisation and factorisation.

Improved Runtime Guarantees for the SPEA2 Multi-Objective Optimizer

Together with the NSGA-II, the SPEA2 is one of the most widely used domination-based multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. For both algorithms, the known runtime guarantees are linear in the population size; for the NSGA-II, matching lower bounds exist. With a careful study of the more complex selection mechanism of the SPEA2, we show that it has very different population dynamics. From these, we prove runtime guarantees for the OneMinMax, LeadingOnesTrailingZeros, and OneJumpZeroJump benchmarks that depend less on the population size. For example, we show that the SPEA2 with parent population size $μ\ge n - 2k + 3$ and offspring population size $λ$ computes the Pareto front of the OneJumpZeroJump benchmark with gap size $k$ in an expected number of $O( (λ+μ)n + n^{k+1})$ function evaluations. This shows that the best runtime guarantee of $O(n^{k+1})$ is not only achieved for $μ= Θ(n)$ and $λ= O(n)$ but for arbitrary $μ, λ= O(n^k)$. Thus, choosing suitable parameters -- a key challenge in using heuristic algorithms -- is much easier for the SPEA2 than the NSGA-II.

Scalable Speed-ups for the SMS-EMOA from a Simple Aging Strategy

Different from single-objective evolutionary algorithms, where non-elitism is an established concept, multi-objective evolutionary algorithms almost always select the next population in a greedy fashion. In the only notable exception, Bian, Zhou, Li, and Qian (IJCAI 2023) proposed a stochastic selection mechanism for the SMS-EMOA and proved that it can speed up computing the Pareto front of the bi-objective jump benchmark with problem size $n$ and gap parameter $k$ by a factor of $\max\{1,2^{k/4}/n\}$. While this constitutes the first proven speed-up from non-elitist selection, suggesting a very interesting research direction, it has to be noted that a true speed-up only occurs for $k \ge 4\log_2(n)$, where the runtime is super-polynomial, and that the advantage reduces for larger numbers of objectives as shown in a later work. In this work, we propose a different non-elitist selection mechanism based on aging, which exempts individuals younger than a certain age from a possible removal. This remedies the two shortcomings of stochastic selection: We prove a speed-up by a factor of $\max\{1,\Theta(k)^{k-1}\}$, regardless of the number of objectives. In particular, a positive speed-up can already be observed for constant $k$, the only setting for which polynomial runtimes can be witnessed. Overall, this result supports the use of non-elitist selection schemes, but suggests that aging-based mechanisms can be considerably more powerful than stochastic selection mechanisms.

Proven Approximation Guarantees in Multi-Objective Optimization: SPEA2 Beats NSGA-II

Together with the NSGA-II and SMS-EMOA, the strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm 2 (SPEA2) is one of the most prominent dominance-based multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs). Different from the NSGA-II, it does not employ the crowding distance (essentially the distance to neighboring solutions) to compare pairwise non-dominating solutions but a complex system of $\sigma$-distances that builds on the distances to all other solutions. In this work, we give a first mathematical proof showing that this more complex system of distances can be superior. More specifically, we prove that a simple steady-state SPEA2 can compute optimal approximations of the Pareto front of the OneMinMax benchmark in polynomial time. The best proven guarantee for a comparable variant of the NSGA-II only assures approximation ratios of roughly a factor of two, and both mathematical analyses and experiments indicate that optimal approximations are not found efficiently.

Tight Runtime Guarantees From Understanding the Population Dynamics of the GSEMO Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm

The global simple evolutionary multi-objective optimizer (GSEMO) is a simple, yet often effective multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA). By only maintaining non-dominated solutions, it has a variable population size that automatically adjusts to the needs of the optimization process. The downside of the dynamic population size is that the population dynamics of this algorithm are harder to understand, resulting, e.g., in the fact that only sporadic tight runtime analyses exist. In this work, we significantly enhance our understanding of the dynamics of the GSEMO, in particular, for the classic CountingOnesCountingZeros (COCZ) benchmark. From this, we prove a lower bound of order $\Omega(n^2 \log n)$, for the first time matching the seminal upper bounds known for over twenty years. We also show that the GSEMO finds any constant fraction of the Pareto front in time $O(n^2)$, improving over the previous estimate of $O(n^2 \log n)$ for the time to find the first Pareto optimum. Our methods extend to other classic benchmarks and yield, e.g., the first $\Omega(n^{k+1})$ lower bound for the OJZJ benchmark in the case that the gap parameter is $k \in \{2,3\}$. We are therefore optimistic that our new methods will be useful in future mathematical analyses of MOEAs.

The First Theoretical Approximation Guarantees for the Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm III (NSGA-III)

This work conducts a first theoretical analysis studying how well the NSGA-III approximates the Pareto front when the population size $N$ is less than the Pareto front size. We show that when $N$ is at least the number $N_r$ of reference points, then the approximation quality, measured by the maximum empty interval (MEI) indicator, on the OneMinMax benchmark is such that there is no empty interval longer than $\lceil\frac{(5-2\sqrt2)n}{N_r-1}\rceil$. This bound is independent of $N$, which suggests that further increasing the population size does not increase the quality of approximation when $N_r$ is fixed. This is a notable difference to the NSGA-II with sequential survival selection, where increasing the population size improves the quality of the approximations. We also prove two results indicating approximation difficulties when $N<N_r$. These theoretical results suggest that the best setting to approximate the Pareto front is $N_r=N$. In our experiments, we observe that with this setting the NSGA-III computes optimal approximations, very different from the NSGA-II, for which optimal approximations have not been observed so far.

Runtime Analysis of the Compact Genetic Algorithm on the LeadingOnes Benchmark

The compact genetic algorithm (cGA) is one of the simplest estimation-of-distribution algorithms (EDAs). Next to the univariate marginal distribution algorithm (UMDA) -- another simple EDA -- , the cGA has been subject to extensive mathematical runtime analyses, often showcasing a similar or even superior performance to competing approaches. Surprisingly though, up to date and in contrast to the UMDA and many other heuristics, we lack a rigorous runtime analysis of the cGA on the LeadingOnes benchmark -- one of the most studied theory benchmarks in the domain of evolutionary computation. We fill this gap in the literature by conducting a formal runtime analysis of the cGA on LeadingOnes. For the cGA's single parameter -- called the hypothetical population size -- at least polylogarithmically larger than the problem size, we prove that the cGA samples the optimum of LeadingOnes with high probability within a number of function evaluations quasi-linear in the problem size and linear in the hypothetical population size. For the best hypothetical population size, our result matches, up to polylogarithmic factors, the typical quadratic runtime that many randomized search heuristics exhibit on LeadingOnes. Our analysis exhibits some noteworthy differences in the working principles of the two algorithms which were not visible in previous works.