Analysis of Different Types of Regret in Continuous Noisy Optimization

The performance measure of an algorithm is a crucial part of its analysis. The performance can be determined by the study on the convergence rate of the algorithm in question. It is necessary to study some (hopefully convergent) sequence that will measure how "good" is the approximated optimum compared to the real optimum. The concept of Regret is widely used in the bandit literature for assessing the performance of an algorithm. The same concept is also used in the framework of optimization algorithms, sometimes under other names or without a specific name. And the numerical evaluation of convergence rate of noisy algorithms often involves approximations of regrets. We discuss here two types of approximations of Simple Regret used in practice for the evaluation of algorithms for noisy optimization. We use specific algorithms of different nature and the noisy sphere function to show the following results. The approximation of Simple Regret, termed here Approximate Simple Regret, used in some optimization testbeds, fails to estimate the Simple Regret convergence rate. We also discuss a recent new approximation of Simple Regret, that we term Robust Simple Regret, and show its advantages and disadvantages.Comment: Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference 2016, Jul 2016, Denver, United States. 201

A prescription of methodological guidelines for comparing bio-inspired optimization algorithms

Bio-inspired optimization (including Evolutionary Computation and Swarm Intelligence) is a growing research topic with many competitive bio-inspired algorithms being proposed every year. In such an active area, preparing a successful proposal of a new bio-inspired algorithm is not an easy task. Given the maturity of this research field, proposing a new optimization technique with innovative elements is no longer enough. Apart from the novelty, results reported by the authors should be proven to achieve a significant advance over previous outcomes from the state of the art. Unfortunately, not all new proposals deal with this requirement properly. Some of them fail to select appropriate benchmarks or reference algorithms to compare with. In other cases, the validation process carried out is not defined in a principled way (or is even not done at all). Consequently, the significance of the results presented in such studies cannot be guaranteed. In this work we review several recommendations in the literature and propose methodological guidelines to prepare a successful proposal, taking all these issues into account. We expect these guidelines to be useful not only for authors, but also for reviewers and editors along their assessment of new contributions to the field.This work was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Science (TIN2016-8113-R, TIN2017-89517-P and TIN2017-83132-C2- 2-R) and Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (PINV-18-XEOGHQ-19- 4QTEBP). Eneko Osaba and Javier Del Ser-would also like to thank the Basque Government for its funding support through the ELKARTEK and EMAITEK programs. Javier Del Ser-receives funding support from the Consolidated Research Group MATHMODE (IT1294-19) granted by the Department of Education of the Basque Government