When and why is crossover beneficial in differential evolution?

Question

I implemented a differential evolution algorithm for a side project I was doing. Because the crossover step seemed to involve a lot of parameter choices (e.g. crossover probabilities), I decided to skip it and just use mutation. The method seemed to work ok, but I am unsure whether I would get better performance if I introduced crossover.

Main Question: What is the motivation behind introducing crossover to differential evolution? Can you provide a toy example where introducing crossover out-performs pure mutation?

My intuition is that crossover will produce something like the following in 2-dimensions. Say we have two parent vectors (red). Uniform crossover could produce a new trial vector at one of the blue points.

I am not sure why this kind of exploration would be expected to be beneficial. In fact, it seems like this could make performance worse if high-fitness solutions follow some linear trend. In the figure below, lets say the red points are the current population, and the optimal solution is towards the lower right corner. The population is traveling down a valley such that the upper right and lower left corners produce bad solutions. The upper left corner produces "okay" but suboptimal solutions. Notice how uniform crossover produces trials (in blue) that are orthogonal to the direction of improvement. I've used a cross-over probability of 1 and neglected mutation to illustrate my point (see code). I imagine this situation could arise quite frequently in optimization problems, but could be misunderstanding something.

Note: In the above example, I am implicitly assuming that the population was randomly initialized (uniformly) across this space, and has begun to converge to the correct solution down the central valley (top left to bottom right).

This toy example is convex, and thus differential evolution wouldn't even be the appropriate technique. However, if this motif was embedded in a multi-modal fitness landscape, it seems like crossover might be detrimental. While crossover does support exploration, which could be beneficial, I am not sure why one would choose to explore in this particular direction.

R code for the example above:

N = 50

x1 <- rnorm(N,mean=2,sd=0.5)
x2 <- -x1+4+rnorm(N,mean=0,sd=0.1)
plot(x1,x2,pch=21,col='red',bg='red',ylim=c(0,4),xlim=c(0,4))

x1_cx = list(rep(0, 50))
x2_cx = list(rep(0, 50))
for (i in 0:N) {
  x1_cx[i] <- x1[i]
  x2_cx[i] <- x2[sample(1:N,1)]
}

points(x1_cx,x2_cx,pch=4,col='blue',lwd=4)

Follow-up Question: If crossover is beneficial in certain situations, is there a sensible approach to a) determining if your specific problem would benefit from crossover, and b) how to tune the crossover parameters to optimize the algorithm?

A related stackoverflow question (I am looking for something more specific, with a toy example for instance): what is the importance of crossing over in Differential Evolution Algorithm?

A similar question, but not specific to differential evolution: Efficiency of crossover in genetic algorithms

Answer 1

I am not particularly familiar with the specifics of the DE algorithm but in general the point of crossover is that if you have two very different individuals with high fitness it will produce an offspring that is intermediate between them without being particularly similar to either. Mutation only explores the local neighbourhood of each individual without taking the rest of the population into account. If you think of genomes as points in some high dimensional vector space, then a mutation is shift in a random direction. Therefore mutation needs to take small steps since if your are starting from a significantly better than random position, a long step in a random direction is almost certain to make things worse because it is essentially just introducing entropy into an evolved genome. You can think of a cross over as a step from one parent towards the other. Since the other parent is also better than random, it is more promising to take a longer step in that direction. This allows for faster exploration of the promising parts of the fitness landscape.

In real biological organisms the genome is often organized in such a way that genes that depend on each other are close together on the same chromosome. This means that crossover is unlikely to break synergetic gene combinations. Real evolution actually moves genes around to achieve this (though this is much slower than the evolution of individual genes) and sometimes the higher order structure of the genome (the 3 dimensional shape of the DNA) evolves to prevent cross-overs in particularly sensitive areas. These mechanisms are rarely modeled in evolutionary algorithms, but you will get more out of crossovers if you order your genome in a way that puts genes that are likely to interact close to each other.