Abstract
Recently, Rowe and Aishwaryaprajna [FOGA 2019] introduced a simple majority vote technique that efficiently solves Jump with large gaps, OneMax with large noise, and any monotone function with a polynomial-size image. In this paper, we identify a pathological condition for this algorithm: the presence of spin-flip symmetry. Spin-flip symmetry is the invariance of a pseudo-Boolean function to complementation. Many important combinatorial optimization problems admit objective functions that exhibit this pathology, such as graph problems, Ising models, and variants of propositional satisfiability. We prove that no population size exists that allows the majority vote technique to solve spin-flip symmetric functions with reasonable probability. To remedy this, we introduce a symmetry-breaking technique that allows the majority vote algorithm to overcome this issue for many landscapes. We prove a sufficient condition for a spin-flip symmetric function to possess in order for the symmetry-breaking voting algorithm to succeed, and prove its efficiency on generalized TwoMax and families of constructed 3-NAE-SAT and 2-XOR-SAT formulas. We also prove that it fails on the one-dimensional Ising model, and suggest different techniques for overcoming this. Finally, we present empirical results that explore the tightness of the runtime bounds and the performance of the technique on randomized satisfiability variants.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.
Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.
Notes
- 1.
The tie-breaking rule, when m is even, depends on the setting.
- 2.
We implicitly use the convention that \(\left( {\begin{array}{c}a\\ b\end{array}}\right) = 0\) for \(a<b\).
References
Briest, P., et al.: The Ising model: simple evolutionary algorithms as adaptation schemes. In: Yao, X., et al. (eds.) PPSN 2004. LNCS, vol. 3242, pp. 31–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30217-9_4
Crawford, J.M., Ginsberg, M.L., Luks, E.M., Roy, A.: Symmetry-breaking predicates for search problems. Proc. KR 96(1996), 148–159 (1996)
Culberson, J.: Genetic invariance: a new paradigm for genetic algorithm design. Technical Report TR92-02, University of Alberta, June 1992
Eiben, A.E., Raué, P.-E., Ruttkay, Z.: Genetic algorithms with multi-parent recombination. In: Davidor, Y., Schwefel, H.-P., Männer, R. (eds.) PPSN 1994. LNCS, vol. 866, pp. 78–87. Springer, Heidelberg (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58484-6_252
Fischer, S.: A polynomial upper bound for a mutation-based algorithm on the two-dimensional ising model. In: Deb, K. (ed.) GECCO 2004. LNCS, vol. 3102, pp. 1100–1112. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24854-5_108
Fischer, S., Wegener, I.: The one-dimensional Ising model: mutation versus recombination. Theor. Comput. Sci. 344(2–3), 208–225 (2005)
Friedrich, T., Kötzing, T., Krejca, M.S., Nallaperuma, S., Neumann, F., Schirneck, M.: Fast building block assembly by majority vote crossover. In: Proceeding of GECCO 2016 (2016)
Hoyweghen, C.V., Goldberg, D.E., Naudts, B.: From TwoMax to the Ising model: easy and hard symmetrical problems. In: Proceeding of GECCO (2002)
Hoyweghen, C.V., Naudts, B., Goldberg, D.E.: Spin-flip symmetry and synchronization. Evol. Comput. 10(4), 317–344 (2002)
Ising, E.: Beitrag zur Theorie des Ferromagnetismus. Zeitschrift für Physik 31(1), 253–258 (1925)
Moore, C., Mertens, S.: The Nature of Computation. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011)
Naudts, B., Naudts, J.: The effect of spin-flip symmetry on the performance of the simple GA. In: Eiben, A.E., Bäck, T., Schoenauer, M., Schwefel, H.-P. (eds.) PPSN 1998. LNCS, vol. 1498, pp. 67–76. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0056850
Naudts, B., Verschoren, A.: SGA search dynamics on second order functions. In: Hao, J.-K., Lutton, E., Ronald, E., Schoenauer, M., Snyers, D. (eds.) AE 1997. LNCS, vol. 1363, pp. 207–221. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0026602
Pelikan, M., Goldberg, D.E.: Genetic algorithms, clustering, and the breaking of symmetry. In: Schoenauer, M., et al. (eds.) PPSN 2000. LNCS, vol. 1917, pp. 385–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45356-3_38
Prestwich, S., Roli, A.: Symmetry breaking and local search spaces. In: Barták, R., Milano, M. (eds.) CPAIOR 2005. LNCS, vol. 3524, pp. 273–287. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11493853_21
Puget, J.: Symmetry breaking revisited. Constraints 10(1), 23–46 (2005)
Rowe, J.E.: Aishwaryaprajna: the benefits and limitations of voting mechanisms in evolutionary optimisation. In: Proceeding of FOGA (2019)
Shlyakhter, I.: Generating effective symmetry-breaking predicates for search problems. Discrete Appl. Math. 155(12), 1539–1548 (2007)
Soos, M., Nohl, K., Castelluccia, C.: Extending SAT solvers to cryptographic problems. In: Kullmann, O. (ed.) SAT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5584, pp. 244–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02777-2_24
Sudholt, D.: Crossover is provably essential for the Ising model on trees. In: Proceeding of GECCO (2005)
Sutton, A.M.: Superpolynomial lower bounds for the (1+1) EA on some easy combinatorial problems. Algorithmica 75(3), 507–528 (2016)
Whitley, D., Varadarajan, S., Hirsch, R., Mukhopadhyay, A.: Exploration and exploitation without mutation: solving the Jump function in \(\varTheta (n)\) time. In: Auger, A., Fonseca, C.M., Lourenço, N., Machado, P., Paquete, L., Whitley, D. (eds.) PPSN 2018. LNCS, vol. 11102, pp. 55–66. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99259-4_5
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Sankineni, P., Sutton, A.M. (2021). Symmetry Breaking for Voting Mechanisms. In: Zarges, C., Verel, S. (eds) Evolutionary Computation in Combinatorial Optimization. EvoCOP 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12692. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72904-2_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72904-2_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-72903-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-72904-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)