Better Runtime Guarantees Via Stochastic Domination
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Apart from few exceptions, the mathematical runtime analysis of evolutionary algorithms is mostly concerned with expected runtimes. In this work, we argue that stochastic domination is a notion that should be used more frequently in this area. Stochastic domination allows to formulate much more informative performance guarantees, it allows to decouple the algorithm analysis into the true algorithmic part of detecting a domination statement and the probability-theoretical part of deriving the desired probabilistic guarantees from this statement, and it helps finding simpler and more natural proofs. As particular results, we prove a fitness level theorem which shows that the runtime is dominated by a sum of independent geometric random variables, we prove the first tail bounds for several classic runtime problems, and we give a short and natural proof for Witt's result that the runtime of any (μ,p) mutation-based algorithm on any function with unique optimum is subdominated by the runtime of a variant of the oea on the onemax function. As side-products, we determine the fastest unbiased (1+1) algorithm for the leadingones benchmark problem, both in the general case and when restricted to static mutation operators, and we prove a Chernoff-type tail bound for sums of independent coupon collector distributions.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 13 Jan 2018.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 3; 2022: 2; 2023: 4; 2024: 2; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
12 papers.
- 2022Theory-inspired Parameter Control Benchmarks for Dynamic Algorithm Configurationcited by 11
- 2021Mathematical Runtime Analysis for the Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II)cited by 8
- 2021Choosing the Right Algorithm With Hints From Complexity Theorycited by 5
- 2023Using Automated Algorithm Configuration for Parameter Controlcited by 5
- 2021An Extended Jump Functions Benchmark for the Analysis of Randomized Search Heuristicscited by 3
- 2022The (1+(λ,λ)) Global SEMO Algorithmcited by 3
- 2024Many Objective Problems Where Crossover is Provably Essentialcited by 3
- 2023Fourier Analysis Meets Runtime Analysis: Precise Runtimes on Plateauscited by 1
- 2023(1+1) Genetic Programming With Functionally Complete Instruction Sets Can Evolve Boolean Conjunctions and Disjunctions with Arbitrarily Small Errorcited by 1
- 2023Larger Offspring Populations Help the (1 + (λ, λ)) Genetic Algorithm to Overcome the Noisecited by 0
- 2024A Block-Coordinate Descent EMO Algorithm: Theoretical and Empirical Analysiscited by 0
- 2026Selection Hyper-heuristics Can Automatically Adjust the Learning Period to Optimally Solve Pseudo-Boolean Problemscited by 0
- 2026Selection Hyper-heuristics Can Automatically Adjust the Learning Period to Optimally Solve Pseudo-Boolean Problems28 May 2026
- 2024Many Objective Problems Where Crossover is Provably Essential24 Dec 2024
- 2024A Block-Coordinate Descent EMO Algorithm: Theoretical and Empirical Analysis4 Apr 2024
- 2023Larger Offspring Populations Help the (1 + (λ, λ)) Genetic Algorithm to Overcome the Noise8 May 2023
- 2023(1+1) Genetic Programming With Functionally Complete Instruction Sets Can Evolve Boolean Conjunctions and Disjunctions with Arbitrarily Small Error13 Mar 2023
- 2023Using Automated Algorithm Configuration for Parameter Control23 Feb 2023
- 2023Fourier Analysis Meets Runtime Analysis: Precise Runtimes on Plateaus16 Feb 2023
- 2022The (1+(λ,λ)) Global SEMO Algorithm7 Oct 2022
- 2022Theory-inspired Parameter Control Benchmarks for Dynamic Algorithm Configuration7 Feb 2022
- 2021Mathematical Runtime Analysis for the Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II)16 Dec 2021
- 2021Choosing the Right Algorithm With Hints From Complexity Theory14 Sep 2021
- 2021An Extended Jump Functions Benchmark for the Analysis of Randomized Search Heuristics7 May 2021