I’m out of my depth in the biochemistry, but combinatorial problems I can address. There is a computer science paper showing that Genetic Algorithms are very efficient, O[n\log(n)]. which is about as efficient as it gets. I will start a new topic and add a link here.
this is a great topic to discuss and to tie in with entropy and information theory. I am sure the genetic code is optimizes some type of energy conservation. I am not remotely knowledgeable in this area but would love to here was has been done in this area.
Give us the story.
You guys are running ahead of me! Here is the paper:
Explaining Adaptation in Genetic Algorithms With Uniform Crossover: The Hyperclimbing Hypothesis
Abstract:
The hyperclimbing hypothesis is a hypothetical explanation for adaptation in genetic algorithms with uniform crossover (UGAs). Hyperclimbing is an intuitive, generalpurpose, nonlocal search heuristic applicable to discrete product spaces with rugged or stochastic cost functions. The strength of this heuristic lie in its insusceptibility to local optima when the cost function is deterministic, and its tolerance for noise when the cost function is stochastic. Hyperclimbing works by decimating a search space, i.e. by iteratively fixing the values of small numbers of variables. The hyperclimbing hypothesis holds that UGAs work by implementing efficient hyperclimbing. Proof of concept for this hypothesis comes from the use of a novel analytic technique involving the exploitation of algorithmic symmetry. We have also obtained experimental results that show that a simple tweak inspired by the hyperclimbing hypothesis dramatically improves the performance of a UGA on large, random instances of MAX3SAT and the Sherrington Kirkpatrick Spin Glasses problem.
Basic summary:
Genetic Algorithms are efficient at solving complex problems. The notation O[nlog(n)] reads “Big Oh of times n log(n)”, which describes the number of operations needed to complete a task to an order of magnitude. for example, a simple bubble sort is O[n^2], and the time needed to sort n items grows “on the order of” n squared.
The time needed for GAs to solve tasks grows much more slowly: on the order of n times log(n), which is just a bit more than linear growth.
Combinatorial problems like the number of arrangements needed to discover new proteins tend to be O[n!] (n factorial) when we try combinations at random, but GAs can complete these tasks orders of magnitude more efficiently than random search.
Disclaimer: This is a CoSci paper, not a biology paper. Some of the things the author does to tune the algorithm may not apply in biology. This effects final optimization, but doesn’t have much effect on efficiency (to an order of magnitude). I assert that biological systems do not need to be optimally efficient in order to function.
edit: typo in formula corrected.
For a simple example, consider a combinatorial problem on 42 items; 42! is about 1.4 \times 10^{51}. A computer takes a log time to explore all these combinations randomly or iteratively.
We expect GAs to be able to solve this much more efficiently; 42 \times log(n) is about 68.
The efficiently of GAs also depends on the effective size of the population. I wasn’t planning to go into those details, but it may come up in discussion.
I wasn’t aware of that! It makes sense but it is still kind of amazing.
That Omeganotation really brings back memories. Long ago I taught analysis of algorithms and I still recall how I had to prepare a lot of “remedial math” handouts for the students who had no basic grasp of the relative “speed of growth” of various mathematical functions. [How can one analyze algorithms if one, for example, doesn’t immediately recognize that f(N^3) grows more rapidly than f(2N^2)? And Omeganotations made many of the undergrad students space out, especially when a logarithm was involved. The Bell Labs engineers in my classes tended to do fine but so many of the others lacked solid high school Algebra II proficiency.]
Mod edit: quoted typo corrected too.
I should probably state this assumes sufficient computational resources to explore the parameter space. A GA running with a population size of one isn’t going to be very efficient, while a population size of 1000 is more than enough for most problems.
Stray thought: I bet there is a connection between the efficiency of GA search and the entropy of the population!’’
It’s definitely amazing. I am automatically suspicious when people start throwning around arguments about the impossibility of evolution, because there is rarely any effort to actually characterize how evolution functions. It’s also more math than most people are familiar with, and they may not even recognize when they are making assumptioons, much less incorrect assumptions.
When did you teach at Bell Labs? My father worked there for a time in the 1960’s. He was a physicist working on computer science problems.
I have a couple questions @Dan_Eastwood.

What is the complexity in time if we note that individuals can be processed in parallel? Does it reduce to time O(log N) if we allow processing of individuals in parallel?

What are the assumptions or conditions required to make this proof? What class of problems does it apply to and fail on?

Can you produce demonstration code?
Yes. Many people react from uninformed intuition (which they nevertheless trust). I once denied evolutionary processes. I didn’t understand them. And if one has limited understanding, the idea of such “basic” processes producing the amazing things we observe seems incredible. Yet we live in an incredible universe which often amazes us. My lifetime educational experience has brought me to a degree of empathy for the scholars of past centuries who had to grapple with the idea that natural processes like gravity explained the motion of heavenly bodies instead of simply assuming “God commands angels to push the planets in their circuits.” That change of mindset was a difficult one for many. Yet, eventually theologians realized that there was no conflict between a sovereign creator and a orderly world of natural processes.
I hope we never lose our amazement as we observe natural processes. Evolution is spellbinding to observe! If I didn’t have personal experience with GA/EA (Genetic Algorithms/Evolutionary Algorithms), I think I might have had a more difficult time grasping how evolutionary processes in nature could build such amazing structures. There’s something almost “magical” about writing an algorithm with just a few basic “rules” within it and sitting back and watch it build efficient solutions to complex problems that I otherwise could not imagine solving by my own conscience “intelligent design”!
If I were to return to the classroom and had a chance to teach evolutionary biology, I think I would make intensive use of some of the great interactive animations where students can experiment with their own evolution scenarios.
I don’t think I’m understanding that question. Obviously, if we take an O(log N) algorithm and multiply it by N, it is still an O(log N) algorithm.
So I assume that I’m not correctly understanding your meaning.
Please accept that I can’t answer these questions in full today. Apologies for the handwavy.
A1) I think parallel processing is inherent in any population size greater than one, and my first thought is NOT to expect further reduction. However, if we allow the population to grow into all positive fitness space, and allow complete sexual mixing (Uniform Crossover in this paper), then we might see improvement towards O(log(n)). At this scale of parellel processing multiple mutations become a significant influence too. Best guess: Given reasonable limits on total computation for each generation, it would be hard to reach O(log(n)), but O[k\times log(n)] for some constant k may be possible.
A2) I will try to pull those assumptions out of the paper. In general, GAs are particularly good at problems that may have local maximums. GAs will be inefficient for problems where the derivatives can be evaluated, because they cannot used that information to “jump” towards optimal solutions.
A3) Not quickly, but it would be a great to have a working demonstration.available here. Let me think on it. Meanwhile: Boxcar2d.com and rednuht.org/genetic_cars_2/ offer simple demonstrations,and http://www.itatsi.net/rules.htm has a GAbased word game you can play.
The Bell Labs engineers were always smarter.
Those are indeed classics. However, do you know of any “ecological” simulations which do a good job of illustrating evolutionary processes? (I’ve even wondered about a series of simulations that start with something extremely basic like Conway’s classic Game of Life and work their up. A lot of students need that kind of slow start and gradual adding of complexity to really grasp how powerful simple rules can be.)
I just felt bad for them because many had worked a 9 to 12 hour day before coming to my night class.
Those were interesting times. That was long before deregulation in the telephone industry brought the collapse of stock values and the huge cash flow which had long funded so much technology at those labs.
I also got confused about whether parallel processing affects bigO time complexity. I think about it in terms of number of operations, not time taken per se. Or I have seen it referred to as relative to some base, to remove eg dependency on speed of processor.
But there is the issue of whether the particular GA algorithm is parallelizable; one could then look at how that affected time complexity. Some googling found this but I have not read in detail.
http://geco.mines.edu/workshop/aug2011/05fri/parallelGA.pdf
In general, doesn’t the complexity depend on the GA algorithm, eg how does complexity of fitness function factor in?
That works too. I was thinking of the biological equivalent, where every member of the population is evaluating its own fitness function in real time; an inherently parallel process.
I’ll take a look at that link later.
The topic title is a bit misleading. A basic EA is dead simple. You can make it more complex by adding constraints, multiple goals, and varying the elimination rules, but it’s not complex all by itself.
As you note, the complexity that matters is in the fitness function.
I will look into the examples used n the paper  I have no idea what MAX3SAT and Spin Glasses problems are, other than they are supposed to be “hard”, and possibly “NPHard”. I can’t do that right now, so if someone else wants to jump in and do this, be my guest.
Links to Wikis on the fitness problem examples used in the paper. Putting these here for my reference, and if anyone wants to follow along. It looks like both problems have solutions that can be represented as bit strings.
MAX3SAT is a canonical complete problem for the complexity class MAXSNP
Sherrington Kirkpatrick Spin Glasses problem
YES! It’s not much of a demonstration yet, and it’s someone else’s code that I swiped, but it’s the most complex python code I’ve been able to get running so far.
Next, I’d like to add some simple graphics to display progress, the ability to plot multiple runs for comparison, and a more complex fitness task.
This paper is too much fun NOT to include here.
The Surprising Creativity of Digital Evolution: A Collection of Anecdotes from the Evolutionary Computation and Artificial Life Research Communities
Abstract
Biological evolution provides a creative fount of complex and subtle adaptations, often surprising the scientists who discover them. However, because evolution is an algorithmic process that transcends the substrate in which it occurs, evolution’s creativity is not limited to nature. Indeed, many researchers in the field of digital evolution have observed their evolving algorithms and organisms subverting their intentions, exposing unrecognized bugs in their code, producing unexpected adaptations, or exhibiting outcomes uncannily convergent with ones in nature. Such stories routinely reveal creativity by evolution in these digital worlds, but they rarely fit into the standard scientific narrative. Instead they are often treated as mere obstacles to be overcome, rather than results that warrant study in their own right. The stories themselves are traded among researchers through oral tradition, but that mode of information transmission is inefficient and prone to error and outright loss. Moreover, the fact that these stories tend to be shared only among practitioners means that many natural scientists do not realize how interesting and lifelike digital organisms are and how natural their evolution can be. To our knowledge, no collection of such anecdotes has been published before. This paper is the crowdsourced product of researchers in the fields of artificial life and evolutionary computation who have provided firsthand accounts of such cases. It thus serves as a written, factchecked collection of scientifically important and even entertaining stories. In doing so we also present here substantial evidence that the existence and importance of evolutionary surprises extends beyond the natural world, and may indeed be a universal property of all complex evolving systems.
Here is a better example, implementing GA for the Traveling Salesman Problem (but here it is Traveling Santa). As a fitness function, this is a much harder problem, full of local minimums where the search will get stuck. Larger populations and lower mutation rates help to avoid getting stuck, but the program runs much slower. This program uses a strict culling, keeping only the best solutions in the population. This also means it gets stuck a lot, even with many generations. A better implementation would make it easier to climb out of local minima  by “better”, I mean more like we might expect selection to work in a biological population, with weaker solutions removed gradually.
I’m still figuring out Python, but I’d like to add some plots to display current results while the program runs. I also want to be able to accumulate statistics over multiple runs to determine what settings lead to reliable optimization to the best solution.
I have been using short test runs, and the best solution I’ve seen is 7824. I suspect there are better solutions to be found.
I hear ya. Many of the GAs I wrote (many years ago) tended to get stuck on local minimums. In those applications I was able to introduce some “swift kick in the engine” code to bruteforce “knock” the GA into exploring other solution sets sufficient to achieve my goals. (Obviously, I was not a brilliant analysis of algorithms theorist.) Nevertheless, I had a grad school friend who made a very nice financial windfall for himself by building a dispatch/routescheduling software system for banks which would control the flow of cash and checks between satellite bank branches and their main banks, based on time of day, day of the week, and predictions of the cash demands of customers. (When he learned about the Travelling Salesman Problem during his MBA years, he decided to apply it immediately.) Whenever I would ask him how he solved the “stuck on local minimums” problem, he’d always smile and say, “Sorry. That’s proprietary.” and do the rubthefingerstogether gesture which indicated he was making good money on his algorithms.
As a result, I’ve sometimes wondered how many nifty algorithmic solutions (including those in GA applications) have never been published due to proprietary factors and trade secrets. (Of course, in the history of cryptographic algorithms and mathematics, there are lots of interesting clashes between proprietary interests, academic freedom, freedom of speech, national defense, and legal demands.)
There I go reminiscing again.