1

Average Convergence Rate of Evolutionary
Algorithms
Jun He and Guangming Lin

arXiv:1504.08117v3 [] 2 Jun 2015

Abstract
In evolutionary optimization, it is important to understand how fast evolutionary algorithms converge to the optimum per
generation, or their convergence rates. This paper proposes a new measure of the convergence rate, called the average convergence
rate. It is a normalized geometric mean of the reduction ratio of the fitness difference per generation. The calculation of the
average convergence rate is very simple and it is applicable for most evolutionary algorithms on both continuous and discrete
optimization. A theoretical study of the average convergence rate is conducted for discrete optimization. Lower bounds on the
average convergence rate are derived. The limit of the average convergence rate is analyzed and then the asymptotic average
convergence rate is proposed.
Index Terms
evolutionary algorithms, evolutionary optimization, convergence rate, Markov chain, matrix analysis

I. I NTRODUCTION
Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) belong to iterative methods. As iterative methods, a fundamental question is their convergence
rates: how fast does an EA converge to the optimum per generation? According to [1], existing results on the convergence
rate of genetic algorithms can be classified into two categories. The first category is related to the eigenvalues of the transition
matrix associated with an EA. A lower bound of convergence rate is derived in [2] for simple genetic algorithms by analyzing
eigenvalues of the transition matrix. Then the work is extended in [3] and it is found that the convergence rate is determined
by the second largest eigenvalue of the transition matrix. The other category is based on Doeblin’s condition. The upper bound
on the convergence rate is derived using Deoblin’s condition in [4]. As to continuous optimization, the local convergence
rate of EAs on the sphere function, quadratic convex functions and convex objective functions are discussed in [5]–[7]. The
research of the convergence rate covers various types of EAs such as isotropic algorithms [8], gene expression programming
[9], multiobjective optimization EAs [10]. The relationship between the convergence rate and population size is investigated
in [11], [12].
The convergence rate in previous studies [1]–[4] is based on Markov chain theory. Suppose that an EA is modeled by a
finite Markov chain with a transition matrix P, in which a state is a population [13]. Let pt be the probability distribution of
the tth generation population on a population space, π an invariant probability distribution of P. Then pt is called convergent
to π if limt→∞ k pt − π k= 0 where k · k is a norm; and the convergence rate refers to the order of how fast pt converges
to π [4]. The goal is to obtain a bound ǫ(t) such that k pt − π k≤ ǫ(t). But to obtain a closed form of ǫ(t) often is difficult
in both theory and practice.
The current paper aims to seek a convergence rate satisfying two requirements: it is easy to calculate the convergence rate
in practice while it is possible to make a rigorous analysis in theory. Inspired from conventional iterative methods [14], a new
measure of the convergence rate, called the average convergence rate, is presented. The paper is organized as follows: Section II
defines the average convergence rate. Section III establishes lower bounds on the average convergence rate. Section IV discusses
the connections between the average convergence rate and other performance measures. Section V introduces an alternative
definition of the average convergence rate if the optimal fitness value is unknown. Section VI concludes the paper.
II. D EFINITION

AND

C ALCULATION

Consider the problem of minimizing (or maximizing) a function f (x). An EA for solving the problem is regarded as an
iterative procedure (Algorithm 1): initially construct a population of solutions Φ0 ; then generate a sequence of populations Φ1 ,
Φ2 , Φ3 and so on. This procedure is repeated until a stopping criterion is satisfied. An archive is used for recording the best
found solution.
The fitness of population Φt is defined by the best fitness value among its individuals, denoted by f (Φt ). Since f (Φt ) is
a random variable, we consider its mean value ft := E[f (Φt )]. Let fopt denote the optimal fitness. The fitness difference
This work was supported by EPSRC under Grant No. EP/I009809/1 (He), National Science Foundation of Guangdong Province under Grant No.
S2013010014108 and Shenzhen Scientific Research Project under Grant No. JCYJ 20130401095559825 (Lin).
Jun He is with Department of Computer Science, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth SY23 3DB, U.K. e-mail: jqh@aber.ac.uk.
Guangming Li is with Shenzhen Institute of Information Technology, China. e-mail: lingm@sziit.com.cn.

2

Algorithm 1 An EA with an archive
1: initialize a population of solutions Φ0 and set t ← 0;
2: an archive records the best solution in Φ0 ;
3: while the archive doesn’t include an optimal solution do
4:
generate a new population of solutions Φt+1 ;
5:
update the archive if a better solution is generated;
6:
t ← t + 1;
7: end while

between fopt and ft is |fopt − ft |. The convergence rate for one generation is
fopt − ft
.
fopt − ft−1

(1)

Since |fopt − ft | ≈ |fopt − ft−1 |, calculating the above ratio is unstable in practice. Thus a new average convergence rate for
EAs is proposed in the current paper.
Definition 1: Given an initial population Φ0 , the average (geometric) convergence rate of an EA for t generations is

1/t
1/t

fopt − ft
fopt − f1
fopt − ft
R(t | Φ0 ) := 1 −
···
≡1−
.
(2)
fopt − f0
fopt − ft−1
fopt − f0
If f0 = fopt , let R(t | Φ0 ) = 1. For the sake of simplicity, R(t) is short for R(t | Φ0 ).
The rate represents a normalized geometric mean of the reduction ratio of the fitness difference per generation. The larger
the convergence rate, the faster the convergence. The rate takes the maximal value of 1 at ft = fopt .
Inspired from conventional iterative methods [14, Definition 3.1], the average (logarithmic) convergence rate is defined as
follows:
fopt − ft
1
.
(3)
R† (t) := − log
t
fopt − f0
Formula (3) is not adopted since its value is +∞ at ft = fopt . But in most cases, average geometric and logarithmic
convergence rates are almost the same. Let αt := |fopt − ft |/|fopt − ft−1 |. Usually αt ≈ 1 and (α1 · · · αt )1/t ≈ 1, then
− log(α1 · · · αt )1/t ÷ (1 − (α1 · · · αt )1/t ) ≈ 1.
In practice, the average convergence rate is calculated as follows: given f (x) with fopt known in advance,
1) Run an EA for T times (T ≫ 1).
2) Then calculate the mean fitness value ft as follows,

1
[1]
[T ]
f (Φt ) + · · · + f (Φt ) ,
(4)
T
[k]

where f (Φt ) denotes the fitness f (Φt ) at the kth run. The law of large numbers guarantees (4) approximating to the
mean fitness value ft = E(f (Φt )) when T tends towards +∞.
3) Finally, calculate R(t) according to formula (2).
The calculation is applicable for most EAs on both continuous and discrete optimization. We take an example to illustrate
the average convergence rate. Consider the problem of minimizing Ackley’s function:
f (x) = − 20 exp{−0.2[

n
n
X
X
1
(xi + e)2 /n] 2 } − exp[
cos(2πxi + 2πe)/n] + 20 + e,
i=1

(5)

i=1

where xi ∈ [−32 − e, 32 − e], i = 1, · · · , n. The optimum is (−e, −e, · · · ) and fopt = 0. We compare the Multi-grid EA
(MEA) [15] with the Fast Evolutionary Programming (FEP) [16] under the same experiment setting (where n is 30 and
population size is 100). Run the two EAs for 1500 generations and 100 times. Calculate ft according to (4) and then R(t)
according to (2). Fig. 1 illustrates the convergence rates of MEA and FEP.
The average convergence rate is different from the progress rate such as |ft − fopt | or logarithmic rate log |ft − fopt | used
in [17]. The progress rate measures the fitness change; but the convergence rate measures the rate of the fitness change. We
demonstrate this difference by an example. Let g(x) = 100f (x). In terms of |ft − fopt |, the progress rate on g(x) is 100 times
that on f (x). In terms of log |ft − fopt |, the progress rate on g(x) is 1 + 2/ log |ft − fopt | times that on f (x). However, the
average convergence rate is the same on both f (x) and g(x).

3

1 · 10−2

MEA
FEP

7.5 · 10−3
5 · 10−3
2.5 · 10−3
0

0

500

1,000

1,500

t
Fig. 1.

A comparison of the average convergence rates R(t) of MEA and FEP on Ackley’s function.

III. A NALYSIS

FOR

D ISCRETE O PTIMIZATION

Looking at Fig. 1 again, two questions may be raised: what is the lower bound or upper bound on R(t)? Does R(t)
converge or not? For discrete optimization, a theoretical answer is provided to these questions in this section. For continuous
optimization, its analysis is left for future research.
In the rest of the paper, we analyze EAs for discrete optimization and assume that their genetic operators do not change
with time. Such an EA can be modeled by a homogeneous Markov chain [13] with transition probabilities Pr(X, Y ) :=
Pr(Φt+1 = Y | Φt = X), X, Y ∈ S, where populations X, Y denote states of Φt and S denotes the set of populations (called
the population space). Let P denote the transition matrix with entries Pr(X, Y ).
A population is called optimal if it includes an optimal solution; otherwise called non-optimal. Let Sopt denote the set of
optimal populations, and Snon = S \ Sopt . Because of the stopping criterion, the optimal set is always absorbing,
Pr(Φt+1 ∈ Snon | Φt ∈ Sopt ) = 0.

(6)

Transition matrix P can be split into four parts:


S
P = opt
Snon

Sopt
A
B

Snon

O
Q

(7)

where A is a submatrix representing probability transitions among optimal states; O a submatrix for probability transitions
from optimal states to non-optimal ones, of which all entries take the value of zero; B a submatrix denoting probability
transitions from non-optimal states to optimal ones; and Q a submatrix for probability transitions among non-optimal states.
Since Φt is a random variable, we investigate the probability distribution of Φt instead of Φt itself. Let qt (X) denote the
probability of Φt at a non-optimal state X, qt (X) := Pr(Φt = X). Let vector (X1 , X2 , · · · ) represent all non-optimal states
and vector qTt denote the probability distribution of Φt in the non-optimal set, where qt := (qt (X1 ), qt (X2 ), · · · )T . Here
notation q is a column vector and qT the row column with the transpose operation. For the initial probability distribution,
q0 ≥ 0 where 0 = (0, 0, · · · )T . Only when the initial population is chosen from the optimal set, q0 = 0.
Consider probability transitions among non-optimal states only, which can be represented by matrix iteration
qTt = qTt−1 Q = qT0 Qt .

(8)

Definition 2: An EA is called convergent if limt→+∞ qt = 0 for any q0 or limt→+∞ Qt = O. It is equivalent to saying
that the probability of finding an optimal solution is 1 as t tends towards +∞.
The mean fitness value ft is given as follows:
X
ft := E[f (Φt )] =
f (X) Pr(Φt = X).
(9)
X∈S

Then it follows
fopt − ft =

X

(f (X) − fopt )qt (X).

(10)

X∈Snon

Let vector f := (f (X1 ), f (X2 ), · · · )T denote the fitness values of all non-optimal populations (X1 , X2 , · · · ). Then (10) can
be rewritten in a vector form
fopt − ft = qTt · (fopt 1 − f ),
where · denotes the vector product and 1 = (1, 1, · · · )T .

(11)

4

For a vector v, denote
k vT k:= |vT · (fopt 1 − f )|.

(12)

Since k v k= 0 iff v = 0; k av k= |a| k v k and k v1 + v2 k≥k v1 k + k v2 k, thus k v k is a vector norm. For a matrix
M, let k M k be the induced matrix norm, given by


k vT M k
:
v
=
6
0
.
(13)
k M k= sup
k vT k
Using the above Markov chain model, we are able to estimate lower bounds on the average convergence rate.
Theorem 1: Let Q be the transition submatrix associated with a convergent EA. For any q0 6= 0,
1) The average convergence rate for t iterations is lower-bounded by
R(t) ≥1− k Qt k1/t .

(14)

2) The limit of the average convergence rate for t generations is lower-bounded by
lim R(t) ≥ 1 − ρ(Q),

t→+∞

(15)

where ρ(Q) is the spectral radius (i.e., the supremum among the absolute values of all eigenvalues of Q).
3) Under random initialization (that is, Pr(Φ0 = X) > 0 for any X ∈ Snon or q0 > 0), it holds
lim R(t) = 1 − ρ(Q).

t→+∞

(16)

4) Under particular initialization (that is, set1 q0 = v/|v| where v is an eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue ρ(Q)
with v ≥ 0 but v 6= 0. The existence of such a v is given in the proof), it holds for all t ≥ 1,
R(t) = 1 − ρ(Q).

(17)

Proof: 1) From (8): qTt = qT0 Qt , we have
|fopt − ft |
k qT0 Qt k
k qT0 kk Qt k
k qTt k
=
≤
=k Qt k .
=
|fopt − f0 |
k qT0 k
k qT0 k
k qT0 k

(18)

Hence
1−

fopt − ft
fopt − f0

1/t

≥ 1− k Qt k1/t ,

(19)

which proves the first conclusion.
2) According to Gelfand’s spectral radius formula [18, p.619], we get
lim k Qt k1/t = ρ(Q).

t→+∞

(20)

The second conclusion follows by combining (20) with (14).
3) Since Q ≥ 0, according to the extension of Perron-Frobenius’ theorems to non-negative matrices [18, pp. 670], ρ(Q) is
an eigenvalue of Q. There exists an eigenvector v corresponding to ρ(Q) such that v ≥ 0 but v 6= 0. In particular,
ρ(Q)vT = vT Q.

(21)

Let max(v) denote the maximum value of the entries in vector v. Due to random initialization, q0 > 0. Let min(q0 ) denote
the minimum value of the entries in vector q0 . Set
min(q0 )
v.
max(v)

(22)

ρ(Q)uT = uT Q.

(23)

u=
From (21), we get

Thus vector u is an eigenvector of ρ(Q).
Let w = q0 − u. Then from (22), we know w ≥ 0. Since q0 = u + w, w ≥ 0 and Q ≥ 0, we deduce that

1 For

qTt = qT0 Qt = (u + w)T Qt ≥ uT Qt = ρ(Q)t uT .
P

vector v = (v1 , v2 , · · · ), denote |v| :=

i

|vi |.

(24)

5

It follows that
fopt − ft
qT · (fopt 1 − f )
ρ(Q)t uT · (fopt 1 − f )
= t
≥
.
fopt − f0
fopt − f0
qT0 · (fopt 1 − f )
fopt − ft
fopt − f0

1/t

uT · (fopt 1 − f )
≥ ρ(Q) T
q0 · (fopt 1 − f )

(25)

1/t

.

(26)

Since both |uT · (fopt 1 − f )| and |qT0 · (fopt 1 − f )| are independent of t, we let t → +∞ and get
uT · (fopt 1 − f )
qT0 · (fopt 1 − f )

lim

t→+∞

1/t

= 1,

(27)

then we get
lim

t→+∞

fopt − ft
fopt − f0

lim R(t) = 1 − lim

t→+∞

t→+∞

1/t

≥ ρ(Q).

fopt − ft
fopt − f0

(28)

1/t

≤ 1 − ρ(Q).

(29)

The third conclusion
P follows by combining (29) with (15).
4) Set q0 = v/ i vi where v is given in Step 3. Then q0 is an eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue ρ(Q) such
that ρ(Q)qT0 = qT0 Q. From (8): qTt = qTt−1 Q, we get
fopt − ft
qT · (fopt 1 − f )
ρ(Q)t qT0 · (fopt 1 − f )
= t
=
.
fopt − f0
fopt − f0
qT0 · (fopt 1 − f )
Thus we have for any t ≥ 1
fopt − ft
fopt − f0

1/t

= ρ(Q),

(30)

then R(t) = 1 − ρ(Q) which gives the fourth conclusion.
The above theorem provides lower bounds on the average convergence rate. Furthermore, it reveals that R(t) converges to
1 − ρ(Q) under random initialization and R(t) = 1 − ρ(Q) for any t ≥ 1 under particular initialization. Similar to conventional
iterative methods [14, pp. 73], we call 1 − ρ(Q) the asymptotic average convergence rate of an EA, denoted by R∞ . According
to (16), its value can be approximately calculated as follows: under random initialization, R(t) approximates to 1 − ρ(Q) if
t is sufficiently large. Note that this definition is different from another asymptotic convergence rate, given by − log ρ(Q)
in [19]. In most cases, the two rates are almost the same since usually ρ(Q) ≈ 1 and then − log ρ(Q) ÷ (1 − ρ(Q)) ≈ 1. Since
1 − ρ(Q) is independent of t and initialization, hence using asymptotic average convergence rate is convenient for comparing
two EAs, for example, to analyze mixed strategy EAs [19].
IV. C ONNECTIONS
The average convergence rate is different from other performance measures of EAs: the expected hitting time is the total
number of generations for obtaining an optimal solution [13]; and fixed budget analysis focuses on the performance of EAs
within fixed budget computation [20]. However, there are some interesting connections between them.
There exists a link between the asymptotic average convergence rate and the hitting time. Let m(X) be the expected
number of generations for a convergent EA to hit Sopt when starting from state X (called the expected hitting time). Denote
m := (m(X1 ), m(X2 ), · · · )T where (X1 , X2 , · · · ) represent all non-optimal states.
Theorem 2: Let Q be the transition submatrix associated with a convergent EA. Then 1/R∞ is not more than k m k∞ :=
max{m(X); X ∈ Snon }.
Proof: According to the fundamental matrix theorem [21, Theorem 11.5], m = (I − Q)−1 1, where I is the unit matrix.
Then
k m k∞ =k (I − Q)−1 1 k∞ =k (I − Q)−1 k∞ ≥ ρ((I − Q)−1 ) = (1 − ρ(Q))−1 ,

(31)

where the last equality takes use of a fact: (1 − ρ(Q))−1 is an eigenvalue and spectral radius of (I − Q)−1 .
The above theorem shows that 1/R∞ is a lower bound on the expected hitting time.
Following Theorem 1, a straightforward connection can be established between the spectral radius ρ(Q) and the progress
rate |fopt − ft |.
Corollary 1: Let Q be the transition submatrix associated with a convergent EA.

6

1) Under random initialization (that is q0 > 0), it holds
lim

t→+∞

|fopt − ft |
= 1.
ρ(Q)t |fopt − f0 |

(32)

2) Under particular initialization (that is, set q0 = v/|v| where v is an eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue ρ(Q)
with v ≥ 0 but v 6= 0), it holds for all t ≥ 1,
|fopt − ft |
= 1.
ρ(Q)t |fopt − f0 |

(33)

The exponential decay, ρ(Q)t |fopt − f0 |, provides a theoretical prediction for the trend of |fopt − ft |. The corollary confirms
that the spectral radius ρ(Q) plays an important role on the convergence rate [3].
We explain the theoretical results by a simple example. Consider a (1+1) EA for maximizing the OneMax function |x|
where x = (s1 , · · · , sn ) ∈ {0, 1, }n.
Algorithm 2 A (1+1) elitits EA
Onebit Mutation: choose a bit of Φt (one individual) uniformly at random and flip it. Let Ψt denote the child.
Elitist Selection: if f (Ψt ) > f (Φt ), then let Φt+1 ← Ψt ; otherwise Φt+1 ← Φt .
Denote subset Sk := {x : |x| = n − k} where k = 0, · · · , n. Transition probabilities satisfy that Pr(Φt+1 ∈ Sk−1 | Φt ∈
Sk ) = nk and Pr(Φt+1 ∈ Sk | Φt ∈ Sk ) = 1 − nk . Writing them in matrix P (where submatrix Q in the bold font):


1
0
0
···
0
0
0
1
1
n 1 − n
0
···
0
0
0


2
2
0
1 − n ···
0
0
0


n
.
(34)
.
..
..
..
..
..
.. 
 ..
.
.
.
.
.
.


0
1 − n−1
0
0
0
· · · n−1
n
n
0
0
0
···
0
1
0
The spectral radius ρ(Q) = 1 − n1 and the asymptotic average convergence rate R∞ = n1 . Notice that 1/R∞ (= n) is less
than the expected hitting time (= n(1 + 12 + · · · + n1 )).
In the OneMax function, set n = 10, and then ρ(Q) = 0.9 and R∞ = 0.1. Choose Φ0 uniformly at random, run the (1+1)
EA for 50 generations and 2000 times, and then calculate ft according to (4) and R(t) according to formula (2). Since Φ0 is
chosen uniformly at random, f0 ≈ 5. Fig. 2 demonstrates that R(t) approximates 0.1(= R∞ ). Fig. 3 shows that the theoretical
exponential decay, ρ(Q)t |fopt − f0 |, and the computational progress rate, |fopt − ft |, coincide perfectly.
0.2
R(t)

0.1

0

Fig. 2.

0

10

20

30
t

40

50

60

R(t) approximates 0.1 for the (1+1) EA on the OneMax function with n = 10.

V. A LTERNATIVE R ATE
So far the calculation of the average convergence rate needs the information about fopt . However this requirement is very
strong. Here we introduce an alternative average convergence rate without knowing fopt , which is given as below,
R‡ (t) := 1 −

ft+δt − ft
ft − ft−δt

1/δt

,

where δt is an appropriate time interval. Its value relies on an EA and a problem.

(35)

7

6
|fopt − ft |
ρ(Q)t |fopt − f0 |

4
2
0

0

10

20

30
t

40

50

60

Fig. 3. A comparison of the theoretical prediction ρ(Q)t |fopt − f0 | and the computational result |fopt − ft | for the (1+1) EA on the OneMax function
with n = 10, f0 = 5, fopt = 10 and ρ(Q) = 0.9.

For the (1+1) EA on the OneMax function with n = 10, we set δt = 10. Choose Φ0 uniformly at random, run the (1+1)
EA for 60 generations and 2000 times, and then calculate ft according to (4) and R‡ (t) according to formula (35). Due to
δt = 10, R‡ (t) has no value for t < 10 and t > 50 according to formula (35). Fig. 4 demonstrates that R‡ (t) approximates
0.1(= 1 − ρ(Q)). But the calculation of R‡ (t) is not as stable as that of R(t) in practice.
0.2
R‡ (t)

0.1

0

Fig. 4.

0

10

20

30
t

40

50

60

R‡ (t) approximates 0.1 for the (1+1) EA on the OneMax function with n = 10.

The above average convergence rate converges to 1 − ρ(Q) but under stronger conditions than that in Theorem 1.
Theorem 3: Let Q be the transition submatrix associated with a convergent EA.
1) Under particular initialization (that is, set q0 = v/|v| where v is an eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue ρ(Q)
with v ≥ 0 but v 6= 0), it holds for all t ≥ 1,
R‡ (t) = 1 − ρ(Q).

(36)

2) Under random initialization (that is q0 > 0), choose an appropriate δt such that g := (I − Qδt )(fopt 1 − f ) > 0 for a
maximization problem (or g < 0 for a minimization problem)2. If Q is positive3 , then it holds
lim R‡ (t) = 1 − ρ(Q).

(37)

t→+∞

Proof: From (8): qTt = qTt−1 Q and (11), we get
ft+δt − ft = ft+δt − fopt + fopt − ft = qTt · (fopt 1 − f ) − qTt+δt · (fopt 1 − f )
= qTt · (fopt 1 − f ) − qTt Qδt (fopt 1 − f ) = qTt · g.

(38)

1) Since q0 is an eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue ρ(Q) such that ρ(Q)qT0 = qT0 Q. From (38) and (8):
= qTt−1 Q, we get

qTt

ft+δt − ft
ft − ft−δt

1/δt

qT · g
= Tt
qt−δt · g

1/δt

=

qT0 Qt g
qT0 Qt−δt g

1/δt

=

ρ(Q)t
qT0 · g
×
ρ(Q)t−δt
qT0 · g

1/δt

= ρ(Q).

(39)

2 It is always true for a large time interval δt since lim
δt
δt→+∞ (I − Q ) = I and fopt 1 − f > 0 for a maximization problem (or fopt 1 − f < 0 for a
minimization problem).
3 The condition of positive Q could be relaxed to non-negative Q if taking a similar argument to the extension of Perron-Frobenius’ theorems to non-negative
matrices [18, pp. 670].

8

Then R‡ (t) = 1 − ρ(Q) which gives the first conclusion.
2) Without loss of the generality, consider g > 0. Since
qT Qδt g
ft+δt − ft
qT · g
= t−δt
,
= Tt
ft − ft−δt
qt−δt · g
qTt−δt · g

(40)

let
λt = min
i

[qTt−δt Qδt ]i
,
[qTt−δt ]i

λt = max
i

[qTt−δt Qδt ]i
,
[qTt−δt ]i

(41)

where [v]i represents the ith entry in vector v.
According to Collatz formula [22] [23, Theorem 2],
lim λt = lim λt = ρ(Qδt ).

t→+∞

(42)

t→+∞

Hence for any [g]i > 0, it holds
lim min

t→+∞

Using min{ ab11 , ab22 } ≤

Equivalently

i

[qTt−δt Qδt ]i [g]i
= ρ(Qδt ),
[qTt−δt ]i [g]i

a1 +a2
b1 +b2

lim max

t→+∞

i

[qTt−δt Qδt ]i [g]i
= ρ(Qδt ).
[qTt−δt ]i [g]i

≤ max{ ab11 , ab22 }, we get
P T
δt
i [qt−δt Q ]i [g]i
P
= ρ(Qδt ).
lim
T
t→+∞
i [qt−δt ]i [g]i
qTt−δt Qδt g
= ρ(Qδt ).
t→+∞ qT
·
g
t−δt
lim

(43)

(44)

(45)

Then
lim

t→+∞

ft+δt − ft
ft − ft−δt

1/δt

= ρ(Qδt )1/δt = ρ(Q).

(46)

Finally it comes to the second conclusion.
The theorem shows that the average convergence rate R‡ (t) plays the same role as R(t). But the calculation of R‡ (t) is not
as stable as that of R(t) in practice.
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
This paper proposes a new convergence rate of EAs, called the average (geometric) convergence rate. The rate represents
a normalized geometric mean of the reduction ratio of the fitness difference per generation. The calculation of the average
convergence rate is simple and easy to implement on most EAs in practice. Since the rate is normalized, it is convenient to
compare different EAs on optimization problems.
For discrete optimization, lower bounds on the average convergence rate of EAs have been established. It is proven that
under random initialization, the average convergence rate R(t) for t generations converges to a limit, called the asymptotic
average convergence rate; and under particular initialization, R(t) equals to the asymptotic average convergence rate for any
t ≥ 1.
The analysis of EAs for continuous optimization is different from that for discrete optimization. In continuous optimization,
an EA is modeled by a Markov chain on a general state space, rather than a finite Markov chain. So a different theoretical
analysis is needed, rather than matrix analysis used in the current paper. This topic is left for future research.
R EFERENCES
[1] L. Ming, Y. Wang, and Y.-M. Cheung, “On convergence rate of a class of genetic algorithms,” in Proceedings of 2006 World Automation Congress.
IEEE, 2006, pp. 1–6.
[2] J. Suzuki, “A Markov chain analysis on simple genetic algorithms,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 655–659,
1995.
[3] F. Schmitt and F. Rothlauf, “On the importance of the second largest eigenvalue on the convergence rate of genetic algorithms,” in Proceedings of 2001
Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, H. Beyer, E. Cantu-Paz, D. Goldberg, Parmee, L. Spector, and D. Whitley, Eds. Morgan Kaufmann
Publishers, 2001, pp. 559–564.
[4] J. He and L. Kang, “On the convergence rate of genetic algorithms,” Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 229, no. 1-2, pp. 23–39, 1999.
[5] G. Rudolph, “Local convergence rates of simple evolutionary algorithms with Cauchy mutations,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation,
vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 249–258, 1997.
[6] ——, “Convergence rates of evolutionary algorithms for a class of convex objective functions,” Control and Cybernetics, vol. 26, pp. 375–390, 1997.

9

[7] ——, “Convergence rates of evolutionary algorithms for quadratic convex functions with rank-deficient hessian,” in Adaptive and Natural Computing
Algorithms. Springer, 2013, pp. 151–160.
[8] O. Teytaud, S. Gelly, and J. Mary, “On the ultimate convergence rates for isotropic algorithms and the best choices among various forms of isotropy,”
in Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSN IX). Springer, 2006, pp. 32–41.
[9] X. Du and L. Ding, “About the convergence rates of a class of gene expression programming,” Science China Information Sciences, vol. 53, no. 4, pp.
715–728, 2010.
[10] N. Beume, M. Laumanns, and G. Rudolph, “Convergence rates of SMS-EMOA on continuous bi-objective problem classes,” in Proceedings of the 11th
Workshop on Foundations of Genetic Algorithms. ACM, 2011, pp. 243–252.
[11] M. Jebalia and A. Auger, “Log-linear convergence of the scale-invariant (µ/µw , λ)-ES and optimal µ for intermediate recombination for large population
sizes,” in Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSN XI). Springer, 2010, pp. 52–62.
[12] F. Teytaud and O. Teytaud, “Convergence rates of evolutionary algorithms and parallel evolutionary algorithms,” in Theory and Principled Methods for
the Design of Metaheuristics. Springer, 2014, pp. 25–39.
[13] J. He and X. Yao, “Towards an analytic framework for analysing the computation time of evolutionary algorithms,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 145, no.
1-2, pp. 59–97, 2003.
[14] R. Varga, Matrix Iterative Analysis. Springer, 2009.
[15] J. He and L. Kang, “A mixed strategy of combining evolutionary algorithms with multigrid methods,” International Journal of Computer Mathematics,
vol. 86, no. 5, pp. 837–849, 2009.
[16] X. Yao, Y. Liu, and G. Lin, “Evolutionary programming made faster,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 82–102, 1999.
[17] R. Salomon, “Evolutionary algorithms and gradient search: similarities and differences,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 2, no. 2,
pp. 45–55, 1998.
[18] C. Meyer, Matrix Analysis and Applied Linear Algebra. SIAM, 2000.
[19] J. He, F. He, and H. Dong, “Pure strategy or mixed strategy?” in Evolutionary Computation in Combinatorial Optimization, J.-K. Hao and M. Middendorf,
Eds. Springer, 2012, pp. 218–229.
[20] T. Jansen and C. Zarges, “Performance analysis of randomised search heuristics operating with a fixed budget,” Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 545,
pp. 39–58, 2014.
[21] C. Grinstead and J. Snell, Introduction to Probability. American Mathematical Society, 1997.
[22] L. Collatz, “Einschließungssätze für charakteristische zahlen von matrizen,” Mathematische Zeitschrift, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 221–226, 1942.
[23] R. J. Wood and M. O’Neill, “Finding the spectral radius of a large sparse non-negative matrix,” ANZIAM Journal, vol. 48, pp. 330–345, 2007.

