Online Selection of CMA-ES Variants

In the field of evolutionary computation, one of the most challenging topics is algorithm selection. Knowing which heuristics to use for which optimization problem is key to obtaining high-quality solutions. We aim to extend this research topic by taking a first step towards a selection method for adaptive CMA-ES algorithms. We build upon the theoretical work done by van Rijn \textit{et al.} [PPSN'18], in which the potential of switching between different CMA-ES variants was quantified in the context of a modular CMA-ES framework. We demonstrate in this work that their proposed approach is not very reliable, in that implementing the suggested adaptive configurations does not yield the predicted performance gains. We propose a revised approach, which results in a more robust fit between predicted and actual performance. The adaptive CMA-ES approach obtains performance gains on 18 out of 24 tested functions of the BBOB benchmark, with stable advantages of up to 23\%. An analysis of module activation indicates which modules are most crucial for the different phases of optimizing each of the 24 benchmark problems. The module activation also suggests that additional gains are possible when including the (B)IPOP modules, which we have excluded for this present work.Comment: To appear at Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO'19) Appendix will be added in due tim

Towards Dynamic Algorithm Selection for Numerical Black-Box Optimization: Investigating BBOB as a Use Case

One of the most challenging problems in evolutionary computation is to select from its family of diverse solvers one that performs well on a given problem. This algorithm selection problem is complicated by the fact that different phases of the optimization process require different search behavior. While this can partly be controlled by the algorithm itself, there exist large differences between algorithm performance. It can therefore be beneficial to swap the configuration or even the entire algorithm during the run. Long deemed impractical, recent advances in Machine Learning and in exploratory landscape analysis give hope that this dynamic algorithm configuration~(dynAC) can eventually be solved by automatically trained configuration schedules. With this work we aim at promoting research on dynAC, by introducing a simpler variant that focuses only on switching between different algorithms, not configurations. Using the rich data from the Black Box Optimization Benchmark~(BBOB) platform, we show that even single-switch dynamic Algorithm selection (dynAS) can potentially result in significant performance gains. We also discuss key challenges in dynAS, and argue that the BBOB-framework can become a useful tool in overcoming these

Sequential vs. Integrated Algorithm Selection and Configuration: A Case Study for the Modular CMA-ES

When faced with a specific optimization problem, choosing which algorithm to use is always a tough task. Not only is there a vast variety of algorithms to select from, but these algorithms often are controlled by many hyperparameters, which need to be tuned in order to achieve the best performance possible. Usually, this problem is separated into two parts: algorithm selection and algorithm configuration. With the significant advances made in Machine Learning, however, these problems can be integrated into a combined algorithm selection and hyperparameter optimization task, commonly known as the CASH problem. In this work we compare sequential and integrated algorithm selection and configuration approaches for the case of selecting and tuning the best out of 4608 variants of the Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES) tested on the Black Box Optimization Benchmark (BBOB) suite. We first show that the ranking of the modular CMA-ES variants depends to a large extent on the quality of the hyperparameters. This implies that even a sequential approach based on complete enumeration of the algorithm space will likely result in sub-optimal solutions. In fact, we show that the integrated approach manages to provide competitive results at a much smaller computational cost. We also compare two different mixed-integer algorithm configuration techniques, called irace and Mixed-Integer Parallel Efficient Global Optimization (MIP-EGO). While we show that the two methods differ significantly in their treatment of the exploration-exploitation balance, their overall performances are very similar

Modular Differential Evolution

New contributions in the field of iterative optimisation heuristics are often made in an iterative manner. Novel algorithmic ideas are not proposed in isolation, but usually as an extension of a preexisting algorithm. Although these contributions are often compared to the base algorithm, it is challenging to make fair comparisons between larger sets of algorithm variants. This happens because even small changes in the experimental setup, parameter settings, or implementation details can cause results to become incomparable. Modular algorithms offer a way to overcome these challenges. By implementing the algorithmic modifications into a common framework, many algorithm variants can be compared, while ensuring that implementation details match in all versions. In this work, we propose a version of a modular framework for the popular Differential Evolution (DE) algorithm. We show that this modular approach not only aids in comparison, but also allows for a much more detailed exploration of the space of possible DE variants. This is illustrated by showing that tuning the settings of modular DE vastly outperforms a set of commonly used DE versions which have been recreated in our framework. We then investigate these tuned algorithms in detail, highlighting the relation between modules and performance on particular problems

IOHanalyzer: Performance Analysis for Iterative Optimization Heuristic

Benchmarking and performance analysis play an important role in understanding the behaviour of iterative optimization heuristics (IOHs) such as local search algorithms, genetic and evolutionary algorithms, Bayesian optimization algorithms, etc. This task, however, involves manual setup, execution, and analysis of the experiment on an individual basis, which is laborious and can be mitigated by a generic and well-designed platform. For this purpose, we propose IOHanalyzer, a new user-friendly tool for the analysis, comparison, and visualization of performance data of IOHs. Implemented in R and C++, IOHanalyzer is fully open source. It is available on CRAN and GitHub. IOHanalyzer provides detailed statistics about fixed-target running times and about fixed-budget performance of the benchmarked algorithms on real-valued, single-objective optimization tasks. Performance aggregation over several benchmark problems is possible, for example in the form of empirical cumulative distribution functions. Key advantages of IOHanalyzer over other performance analysis packages are its highly interactive design, which allows users to specify the performance measures, ranges, and granularity that are most useful for their experiments, and the possibility to analyze not only performance traces, but also the evolution of dynamic state parameters. IOHanalyzer can directly process performance data from the main benchmarking platforms, including the COCO platform, Nevergrad, and our own IOHexperimenter. An R programming interface is provided for users preferring to have a finer control over the implemented functionalities

Analysis of modular CMA-ES on strict box-constrained problems in the SBOX-COST benchmarking suite

Box-constraints limit the domain of decision variables and are common in real-world optimization problems, for example, due to physical, natural or spatial limitations. Consequently, solutions violating a box-constraint may not be evaluable. This assumption is often ignored in the literature, e.g., existing benchmark suites, such as COCO/BBOB, allow the optimizer to evaluate infeasible solutions. This paper presents an initial study on the strict-box-constrained benchmarking suite (SBOX-COST), which is a variant of the well-known BBOB benchmark suite that enforces box-constraints by returning an invalid evaluation value for infeasible solutions. Specifically, we want to understand the performance difference between BBOB and SBOX-COST as a function of two initialization methods and six constraint-handling strategies all tested with modular CMA-ES. We find that, contrary to what may be expected, handling box-constraints by saturation is not always better than not handling them at all. However, across all BBOB functions, saturation is better than not handling, and the difference increases with the number of dimensions. Strictly enforcing box-constraints also has a clear negative effect on the performance of classical CMA-ES (with uniform random initialization and no constraint handling), especially as problem dimensionality increases

OPTION: OPTImization Algorithm Benchmarking ONtology

Many optimization algorithm benchmarking platforms allow users to share their experimental data to promote reproducible and reusable research. However, different platforms use different data models and formats, which drastically complicates the identification of relevant datasets, their interpretation, and their interoperability. Therefore, a semantically rich, ontology-based, machine-readable data model that can be used by different platforms is highly desirable. In this paper, we report on the development of such an ontology, which we call OPTION (OPTImization algorithm benchmarking ONtology). Our ontology provides the vocabulary needed for semantic annotation of the core entities involved in the benchmarking process, such as algorithms, problems, and evaluation measures. It also provides means for automatic data integration, improved interoperability, and powerful querying capabilities, thereby increasing the value of the benchmarking data. We demonstrate the utility of OPTION, by annotating and querying a corpus of benchmark performance data from the BBOB collection of the COCO framework and from the Yet Another Black-Box Optimization Benchmark (YABBOB) family of the Nevergrad environment. In addition, we integrate features of the BBOB functional performance landscape into the OPTION knowledge base using publicly available datasets with exploratory landscape analysis. Finally, we integrate the OPTION knowledge base into the IOHprofiler environment and provide users with the ability to perform meta-analysis of performance data

Computing Star Discrepancies with Numerical Black-Box Optimization Algorithms

The $L_{\infty}$ star discrepancy is a measure for the regularity of a finite set of points taken from $[0,1)^d$. Low discrepancy point sets are highly relevant for Quasi-Monte Carlo methods in numerical integration and several other applications. Unfortunately, computing the $L_{\infty}$ star discrepancy of a given point set is known to be a hard problem, with the best exact algorithms falling short for even moderate dimensions around 8. However, despite the difficulty of finding the global maximum that defines the $L_{\infty}$ star discrepancy of the set, local evaluations at selected points are inexpensive. This makes the problem tractable by black-box optimization approaches. In this work we compare 8 popular numerical black-box optimization algorithms on the $L_{\infty}$ star discrepancy computation problem, using a wide set of instances in dimensions 2 to 15. We show that all used optimizers perform very badly on a large majority of the instances and that in many cases random search outperforms even the more sophisticated solvers. We suspect that state-of-the-art numerical black-box optimization techniques fail to capture the global structure of the problem, an important shortcoming that may guide their future development. We also provide a parallel implementation of the best-known algorithm to compute the discrepancy.Comment: To appear in the Proceedings of GECCO 202