Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Runtime Analysis of Fitness-Proportionate Selection on Linear Functions

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Fitness-proportionate selection is exponentially slow on linear functions with standard mutation rates; lowering the mutation rate or exponentiating the fitness restores polynomial expected time.

desk verdict A significant runtime analysis for fitness-proportionate selection on linear functions, with a clean negative result and useful positive results; the main caveat is that the positive results are proven only for integer weights, while the abstract claims more. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08686 v1 pith:2WNZH5Q3 submitted 2019-08-23 cs.NE

Duc-Cuong Dang , Anton Eremeev , Per Kristian Lehre This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NE MSC 68Q2568W2068T20
keywords fitness-proportionateselectionroulette-wheelevolutionaryalgorithmruntimeanalysislinearfunctionsnegativedrifttheoremlevel-basedexponentialfitnessscaling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper analyzes roulette-wheel (fitness-proportionate) selection, one of the oldest genetic-algorithm mechanisms, on the broad class of linear fitness functions over bit strings. It proves that with the standard per-bit mutation rate $\Theta(1/n)$ and population size $n^k$ for any constant $k>2$, every linear function with positive weights requires exponential time to optimize, with overwhelmingly high probability. It then shows the mechanism can be rescued: lowering the mutation rate to $\Theta(1/n^2)$ with a sufficiently large population gives polynomial expected runtime on linear functions with polynomially bounded integer weights, and exponentiating the fitness to $e^{(\chi+\varepsilon)f(x)}$ gives $O(n\lambda\ln\lambda+n^2)$ expected time even at standard mutation rates. Together, these results draw a sharp boundary between efficient and inefficient settings for a selection rule that remains important in both evolutionary computation and models of directed evolution.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on two complementary population-level drift tools. The lower bound uses the negative drift theorem for populations, which bounds the expected reproductive rate of individuals: at standard mutation rates, fitness-proportionate selection keeps the reproductive rate below $e^\chi$, so the population cannot climb the fitness landscape toward the optimum. The upper bounds use the level-based analysis theorem applied to a partition of the search space into levels defined by prefix sums of the weights; the low mutation rate makes the probability of improving one level sufficiently large, and integrality of the weights gives a quantitative gap in selection probability for better individuals. Fitness scaling $e^{(\chi+\varepsilon)f(x)}$ amplifies the probability of selecting better individuals to a constant, which restores efficiency even at standard mutation rates.

What would settle it

Run the algorithm with fitness-proportionate selection, mutation rate $(1-c)/(n a_1)$, and a linear function with non-integer polynomially bounded weights such as $a_j = 1 + 1/(2j)$; if the expected runtime stays polynomial, the integer-gap argument is not essential, and if it becomes exponential, the integer restriction is confirmed as load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central negative claim is Theorem 4: for any constant $\chi>\ln 2$, population size $\lambda\ge n^{2+\delta}$, and any linear function with positive weights, the algorithm with fitness-proportionate selection and bitwise mutation rate $\chi/n$ finds the optimum within $e^{c n}$ generations with probability at most $\lambda e^{-\Omega(n^\delta)}$. That is, with standard mutation rates, optimizing any linear function requires exponential time with overwhelmingly high probability. The companion positive claims (Theorems 5-7) show that the same algorithm becomes efficient under two rescues: reducing the mutation rate to $\chi/n=(1-c)/(n a_1)$ with population size polynomial in $n a_1$ yields polynomial expected runtime for integer weights, and applying the scaling $c^{f(x)}$ with $c>e^{\chi}$ yields $O(n\lambda\ln\lambda+n^2)$ expected runtime for any linear function and any $\varepsilon>0$. These bounds extend to separable additively decomposed functions such as Royal Road functions.

Load-bearing premise

The polynomial upper bounds require all weights $a_j$ to be integers, because the proof needs a fitness gap of at least 1 between distinct levels; for arbitrary real weights that gap can vanish and the stated polynomial bounds are not proven.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Standard-mutation fitness-proportionate EAs are not merely slow on OneMax: they fail on every linear function, so the negative result is fully general for this class.
  • The inapproximability corollary shows that with weights differing by a factor of at most $r$, no solution within a concrete approximation factor is found within exponential time.
  • Reducing the mutation rate to $\Theta(1/n^2)$ with a large population restores polynomial expected runtime for any linear function with polynomially bounded integer weights.
  • Exponential fitness scaling $e^{(\chi+\varepsilon)f(x)}$ with population size $\lambda=\Omega(\ln n)$ gives $O(n\lambda\ln\lambda+n^2)$ expected time for any linear function and any $\varepsilon>0$.
  • The same positive results extend to separable additively decomposed fitness functions such as Royal Road functions with constant block length.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: The integer-weights restriction on the positive theorems suggests the polynomial bounds may fail for real-valued weights; a testable hypothesis is that the true threshold for polynomial time depends on the minimum fitness gap between distinct levels, not just on the magnitude of the weights.
  • Editorial inference: The negative result at $\chi>\ln 2$ and the positive scaled-fitness result at any $\chi>0$ with $c>e^\chi$ imply a phase transition in selective pressure; one could search for the critical curve in the $(\chi,c)$ parameter space where expected runtime jumps from polynomial to exponential.
  • Editorial inference: The connection to SELEX and directed evolution suggests that in vitro evolution with concentration-proportional amplification may operate in the exponential-scaling regime, so its efficiency may hinge on whether binding affinities effectively act as integer-valued weights.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the runtime of a non-elitist evolutionary algorithm with fitness-proportionate selection (Algorithm 1) on the class of linear pseudo-Boolean functions. Its main negative result (Theorem 4) states that for any linear function with positive weights, bitwise mutation rate χ/n for any constant χ > ln 2, and population size λ ≥ n^{2+δ} with λ polynomial, the probability of finding the optimum within e^{c n} generations is at most λ e^{-Ω(n^δ)}; a companion inapproximability bound (Corollary 1) is also derived. The positive results show that polynomial expected runtime can be recovered if the mutation rate is lowered to χ/n = (1-c)/(n^2 a_1) with sufficiently large λ (Theorems 5 and 6), or if the fitness is exponentially scaled, i.e., e^{(χ+ε)f(x)} or c·Linear(x) with c > e^χ (Theorem 7), and these bounds are extended to additively decomposed functions including Royal Road (Theorem 8). The proofs use the level-based analysis method (Theorems 1 and 2) and the negative drift theorem for populations (Theorem 3).

Significance. If the results hold, they substantially extend the existing runtime theory of fitness-proportionate selection from the single benchmark function OneMax to the whole class of linear functions, a central class in evolutionary computation theory. The negative result is strong because it applies to all linear functions, covers the standard mutation regime χ = Θ(1), and is accompanied by an explicit inapproximability statement. The positive results identify two parameter regimes in which fitness-proportionate selection becomes efficient, and they are derived by verifying conditions of established theorems rather than introducing ad-hoc assumptions. The paper also makes a credible connection to biological applications such as SELEX and directed evolution. However, the positive results are proven only under an integer-weight assumption that is omitted from the abstract and from the theorem statements, and at least one proof of an improved runtime bound contains a concrete error; these issues need to be addressed before the claims as stated can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4 (Theorems 5–8) and Abstract] The positive upper bounds are proven only under the blanket assumption stated at the start of Section 4 that all weights a_j are integer, but the abstract claims polynomial expected runtime for 'any linear function with polynomially bounded weights' without this restriction. In the proof of Theorem 5, the lower bound on β(γ,P) relies on the fact that any individual with fitness below the threshold f_γ has fitness at most f_γ − 1; for arbitrary real weights of polynomial magnitude, the gap can be exponentially small (e.g., weights 1 and 1 + 2^{-n}), so the required margin in condition (M3) with δ = c/(4 n a_1) does not follow. The same integrality assumption is used in the proof of Theorem 7 in the appendix, where it is stated that f(x) takes only integer values in case of integer weights a_j. The statements of Theorems 5–8 and the abstract should explicitly restrict to integer weights, or the proofs must be extended to real weights.
  2. [Theorem 6 (proof and statement)] The proof of Theorem 6 verifies condition (M4') but then concludes 'By Theorem 1', which requires (M4) rather than (M4'); the correct theorem is Theorem 2. Moreover, substituting δ = c/(4 n a_1), γ0 = c/4, and s_j = (1−c)/(e n^2 a_1) into Theorem 2's bound E[T] = O(m λ log(γ0 λ)/δ + (1/δ) Σ 1/(γ0 s_j)) yields a second term of order n^4 a_1^2/(c^2(1−c)), not the claimed n^3 a_1^2. The claimed bound O(n^2 a_1 λ log(na_1) + n^3 a_1^2) is therefore not justified by the given derivation; the proof must be corrected or the bound revised.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Theorem 4, proof of part (i)] Part (i) is established only by saying 'analogously to Corollary 1 from [24]'; please provide a self-contained derivation or a precise statement of the corollary, since this is a central claim.
  2. [Theorem 5, proof] The explicit runtime bound in the theorem statement and the proof's final expression are inconsistent: the proof writes E[T] ≤ 27 n^2 a_1^2/c^2 (n λ ln(3δλ/2) + 4e n^2 a_1/(c(1−c))) while the theorem states 27 n^3 a_1^2/c^2 (λ ln(3δλ/2) + 4e n^2 a_1/(c(1−c))). The constants also do not match the 128 that would follow from 8/δ^2. Please reconcile these expressions.
  3. [Theorem 4, proof] The symbol ψ is reused for an upper bound on ln(α)/χ, whereas in Theorem 3 it denotes ln(α)/χ + δ; please rename one of them to avoid confusion.
  4. [References] Reference [5] contains an empty author field ('Dang, D.C., , Jansen, T.'); please fix the citation.
  5. [Theorem 4 and Corollary 1] The assumption λ = poly(n) from Theorem 3 is satisfied by the λ = n^k in the abstract, but this is not stated in the theorem; a short remark would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's bounds follow by verifying external level-based and negative-drift theorems, with self-citations used only as black-box proof tools.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in any of the seven identified senses. The central upper bounds are obtained by verifying conditions (M1)–(M4) of the level-based theorems quoted as Theorem 1 (from Corus et al. [3]) and Theorem 2 (from Doerr and Kötzing [10]). These are general, externally established proof tools that do not assume the target runtime results; the paper supplies the specific estimates of mutation probabilities and selection probabilities needed to satisfy them. Likewise, the negative result in Theorem 4 is derived from the negative drift theorem for populations (Theorem 3, from Lehre [24]) after the paper proves its own Lemma 1 bounding the reproductive rate; the cited theorem is an independent benchmark, not a restatement of the conclusion. Although Refs. [3] and [24] include the present authors among their authors, the cited statements are general theorems about level-based analysis and drift, and the paper's contribution is the verification of their hypotheses for fitness-proportionate selection on Linear functions. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then relabeled as a prediction. The assumption in Section 4 that all weights are integer is an unstated restriction relative to the abstract's phrase 'polynomially bounded weights', but that is a correctness or generality concern, not circularity: the proofs are self-contained given the stated assumption, and the integer gap is an analytic necessity rather than an input re-exported as a conclusion. The reader's summary and the skeptic's attack both correctly identify no circular step, and the paper's results stand independently of any self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes proofs, not new entities or fitted parameters. The constants c, ε, χ, δ in the theorems are universal tunables of the algorithm or proof, not fitted to data. The central claims rest on established background theorems (level-based analysis, negative drift) plus the domain assumptions of positive, sorted, and, for positive results, integer weights.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Level-based analysis theorems (Theorem 1 from Corus et al. 2018, Theorem 2 from Doerr and Kötzing 2019) provide valid expected-runtime upper bounds for non-elitist EAs when conditions (M1)-(M4') hold.
    Used as black-box tools in the proofs of Theorems 5-8. These are published peer-reviewed results in the same research program, cited as [3] and [10].
  • domain assumption Negative drift theorem for populations (Theorem 3 from Lehre 2010) correctly lower-bounds the probability of reaching a target Hamming ball under bounded reproductive rate.
    Used in Theorem 4 to prove the exponential lower bound; cited as [24].
  • domain assumption The weights a_i of the linear function are positive and can be sorted in descending order without loss of generality.
    Section 2 says this is justified by the symmetry of bitwise mutation.
  • domain assumption The weights a_i are integers for the positive results.
    Section 4 states this explicitly. It is needed for the fitness gap argument in condition (M3). The abstract does not state this restriction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Runtime Analysis of Fitness-Proportionate Selection on Linear Functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2WNZH5Q3

@misc{pith2026190808686,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Runtime Analysis of Fitness-Proportionate Selection on Linear Functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2WNZH5Q3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08686}
}
abstract

This paper extends the runtime analysis of non-elitist evolutionary algorithms (EAs) with fitness-proportionate selection from the simple OneMax function to the linear functions. Not only does our analysis cover a larger class of fitness functions, it also holds for a wider range of mutation rates. We show that with overwhelmingly high probability, no linear function can be optimised in less than exponential time, assuming bitwise mutation rate $\Theta(1/n)$ and population size $\lambda=n^k$ for any constant $k>2$. In contrast to this negative result, we also show that for any linear function with polynomially bounded weights, the EA achieves a polynomial expected runtime if the mutation rate is reduced to $\Theta(1/n^2)$ and the population size is sufficiently large. Furthermore, the EA with mutation rate $\chi/n=\Theta(1/n)$ and modest population size $\lambda=\Omega(\ln n)$ optimises the scaled fitness function $e^{(\chi+\varepsilon)f(x)}$ for any linear function $f$ and any $\varepsilon>0$ in expected time $O(n\lambda\ln\lambda+n^2)$. These upper bounds also extend to some additively decomposed fitness functions, such as the Royal Road functions. We expect that the obtained results may be useful not only for the development of the theory of evolutionary algorithms, but also for biological applications, such as the directed evolution.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Operations Research 45, 225–234 (1997)

    Aggarwal, C., Orlin, J., Tai, R.: An optimized crossover f or maximum independent set. Operations Research 45, 225–234 (1997)

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    European Journal of Operational Research 94(2), 394–404 (1996)

    Beasley, J., Chu, P.: A genetic algorithm for the set cover ing problem. European Journal of Operational Research 94(2), 394–404 (1996)

    work page 1996

  3. [3]

    IEEE Trans

    Corus, D., Dang, D., Eremeev, A.V., Lehre, P.K.: Level-Ba sed Analysis of Genetic Algorithms and Other Search Processes. IEEE Trans. on Evolu tionary Computa- tion 22(5), 707–719 (Oct 2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    IEEE Trans

    Dang, D., Friedrich, T., Kotzing, T., Krejca, M.S., Lehre , P.K., Oliveto, P.S., Sud- holt, D., Sutton, A.M.: Escaping local optima using crossov er with emergent di- versity. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 22(3), 48 4–497 (June 2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Algorithmica 78(2), 660–680 (2017)

    Dang, D.C., , Jansen, T., Lehre, P.K.: Populations can be e ssential in tracking dynamic optima. Algorithmica 78(2), 660–680 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Algorithmica 75(3), 428–461 (2016)

    Dang, D.C., Lehre, P.K.: Runtime analysis of non-elitist populations: From classical optimisation to partial information. Algorithmica 75(3), 428–461 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    In: Proc of PPSN’16

    Dang, D.C., Lehre, P.K.: Self-adaptation of mutation rat es in non-elitist popula- tions. In: Proc of PPSN’16. pp. 803–813 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Biotechn ology Advances 33, 1141–1161 (2015) 13

    Darmostuk, M., Rimpelova, S., Gbelcova, H., Ruml, T.: Cur rent approaches in SELEX: An update to aptamer selection technology. Biotechn ology Advances 33, 1141–1161 (2015) 13

    work page 2015

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Doerr, B., Doerr, C., Ebel, F.: From black-box complexity to designing new genetic algorithms. Theor. Comput. Sci. 567, 87–104 (2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    In: P roceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference

    Doerr, B., K¨ otzing, T.: Multiplicative up-drift. In: P roceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference. pp. 1470–1478. GECC O ’19, ACM, New York, NY, USA (2019), http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3321707.3321819

    2019

  3. [11]

    Theoretical Computer Science 561, 3–23 (Jan 2015)

    Doerr, B., K¨ unnemann, M.: Optimizing linear functions with the (1+ λ ) evolution- ary algorithm–Different asymptotic runtimes for different i nstances. Theoretical Computer Science 561, 3–23 (Jan 2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    In: Proc

    Doerr, B., Le, H.P., Makhmara, R., Nguyen, T.D.: Fast gen etic algorithms. In: Proc. of GECCO’17. pp. 777–784 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Theoretical Computer Science 276(1-2), 51–81 ( Apr 2002)

    Droste, S., Jansen, T., Wegener, I.: On the analysis of th e (1+1) evolutionary algorithm. Theoretical Computer Science 276(1-2), 51–81 ( Apr 2002)

    2002

  6. [14]

    In: Proc

    Eremeev, A., Spirov, A.: Estimates from evolutionary al gorithms theory applied to gene design. In: Proc. of 11th International Multiconfer ence Bioinformatics of Genome Regulation and Structure \ Systems Biology. pp. 33–38. IEEE (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Eremeev, A.: Hitting times of local and global optima in g enetic algorithms with very high selection pressure. Yugosl. J. Oper. Res. 27(3), 3 23–339 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc

    Goldberg, D.E.: Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimiza tion and Machine Learn- ing. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. (1989)

    1989

  9. [17]

    Hajek, B.: Hitting-time and occupation-time bounds imp lied by drift analysis with applications. Adv. Appl. Probab. 14(3), 502–525 (1982)

    1982

  10. [18]

    I n: Proc

    Happ, E., Johannsen, D., Klein, C., Neumann, F.: Rigorou s analyses of fitness- proportional selection for optimizing linear functions. I n: Proc. of GECCO’08. pp. 953–960 (2008)

    2008

  11. [19]

    Artificial Intelligence 127(1), 57–85 (2001)

    He, J., Yao, X.: Drift analysis and average time complexi ty of evolutionary algo- rithms. Artificial Intelligence 127(1), 57–85 (2001)

    2001

  12. [20]

    Artificial Intelligence 140(1), 245–248 (Sep 2002)

    He, J., Yao, X.: Erratum to: Drift analysis and average ti me complexity of evolu- tionary algorithms: [Artificial Intelligence 127 (2001) 57 85]. Artificial Intelligence 140(1), 245–248 (Sep 2002)

    2001

  13. [21]

    Journal of the American Statistical Association 58(301), 1 3 – 30 (1963)

    Hoeffding, W.: Probability inequalities for sums of boun ded random variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 58(301), 1 3 – 30 (1963)

    1963

  14. [22]

    Journal of Molecular Biology 222(3), 739 – 761 (1991)

    Irvine, D., Tuerk, C., Gold, L.: SELEXION: systematic ev olution of ligands by ex- ponential enrichment with integrated optimization by non- linear analysis. Journal of Molecular Biology 222(3), 739 – 761 (1991)

    1991

  15. [23]

    In: Proc

    Jansen, T., Wegener, I.: On the utility of populations in evolutionary algorithms. In: Proc. of GECCO’01. pp. 1034–1041 (2001)

    2001

  16. [24]

    In: Proc

    Lehre, P.K.: Negative drift in populations. In: Proc. of PPSN’10. pp. 244–253 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    In: Proc

    Lehre, P.K.: Fitness-levels for non-elitist populatio ns. In: Proc. of GECCO’11. pp. 2075–2082 (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    In: Proc

    Lehre, P.K., ¨Ozcan, E.: A runtime analysis of simple hyper-heuristics: T o mix or not to mix operators. In: Proc. of FOGA’13. pp. 97–104 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the 1st Annual Conference on Genetic and Evol utionary Compu- tation - Volume 1

    Marchiori, E., Rossi, C.: A flipping genetic algorithm fo r hard 3-SAT problems. In: Proceedings of the 1st Annual Conference on Genetic and Evol utionary Compu- tation - Volume 1. pp. 393–400. GECCO’99, Morgan Kaufmann Pu blishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA (1999)

    1999

  20. [28]

    Theo- retical Population Biology 122, 97 – 109 (2018)

    Miller, C.R., Leuven, J.T.V., Wichman, H.A., Joyce, P.: Selecting among three basic fitness landscape models: Additive, multiplicative a nd stickbreaking. Theo- retical Population Biology 122, 97 – 109 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Journal of Heuris tics 5(2), 215–247 (1999) 14

    M¨ uhlenbein, H., Mahnig, T., Rodriguez, A.O.: Schemata, distributions and graphi- cal models in evolutionary optimization. Journal of Heuris tics 5(2), 215–247 (1999) 14

    1999

  22. [30]

    In: Proc

    Neumann, F., Oliveto, P.S., Witt, C.: Theoretical analy sis of fitness-proportional selection: Landscapes and efficiency. In: Proc. of GECCO’09. pp. 835–842 (2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    Theoretical Computer Science 229, 41–102 (1999)

    van Nimwegen, E., Crutchfield, J.P., Mitchell, M.: Stati stical dynamics of the royal road genetic algorithm. Theoretical Computer Science 229, 41–102 (1999)

    1999

  24. [32]

    Algorithmica 59(3), 369–386 (2011 )

    Oliveto, P.S., Witt, C.: Simplified drift analysis for pr oving lower bounds in evo- lutionary computation. Algorithmica 59(3), 369–386 (2011 )

    2011

  25. [33]

    Oliveto, P.S., Witt, C.: On the runtime analysis of the si mple genetic algorithm. Theor. Comput. Sci. 545, 2–19 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Oliveto, P.S., Witt, C.: Improved time complexity analy sis of the simple genetic algorithm. Theor. Comput. Sci. 605, 21–41 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    C., Friedrich, T., Lehre, P.K., Sudholt, D., Sutton, A.M., Trubenova, B.: Toward a uni fying framework for evolutionary processes

    Paixao, T., Badkobeh, G., Barton, N., Corus, D., Dang, D. C., Friedrich, T., Lehre, P.K., Sudholt, D., Sutton, A.M., Trubenova, B.: Toward a uni fying framework for evolutionary processes. Journal of Theoretical Biology 38 3, 28 – 43 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    Theoretical Computer Science 320(1), 123 – 13 4 (2004), http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304397504001987

    Storch, T., Wegener, I.: Real royal road functions for co nstant pop- ulation size. Theoretical Computer Science 320(1), 123 – 13 4 (2004), http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304397504001987

    2004

  29. [37]

    Biochemical Soc Transact 4 4(4), 1165–1175 (2016)

    Tizei, P.A., Csibra, E., Torres, L., Pinheiro, V.B.: Sel ection platforms for directed evolution in synthetic biology. Biochemical Soc Transact 4 4(4), 1165–1175 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Witt, C.: Population size versus runtime of a simple evol utionary algorithm. Theor. Comput. Sci. 403(1), 104–120 (2008)

    2008

  31. [39]

    Comb Probab Comput

    Witt, C.: Tight bounds on the optimization time of a rando mized search heuristic on linear functions. Comb Probab Comput. 22(2), 294–318 (20 13) 15 Appendix The following proofs were omitted from the main part of the paper, a nd have been included here for the benefit of the r...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.