Parallel Problem Solving from Nature – PPSN XV

The CMA-ES is one of the most powerful stochastic numerical optimizers to address difficult black-box problems. Its intrinsic time and space complexity is quadratic—limiting its applicability with increasing problem dimensionality. To circumvent this limitation, different large-scale variants of CMA-ES with subquadratic complexity have been proposed over the past ten years. To-date however, these variants have been tested and compared only in rather restrictive settings, due to the lack of a comprehensive large-scale testbed to assess their performance. In this context, we introduce a new large-scale testbed with dimension up to 640, implemented within the COCO benchmarking platform. We use this testbed to assess the performance of several promising variants of CMA-ES and the standard limited-memory L-BFGS. In all tested dimensions, the best CMA-ES variant solves more problems than L-BFGS for larger budgets while L-BFGS outperforms the best CMA-ES variant for smaller budgets. However, over all functions, the cumulative runtime distributions between L-BFGS and the best CMA-ES variants are close (less than a factor of 4 in high dimension). Our results illustrate different scaling behaviors of the methods, expose a few defects of the algorithms and reveal that for dimension larger than 80, LM-CMA solves more problems than VkD-CMA while in the cumulative runtime distribution over all functions the VkD-CMA dominates LM-CMA for budgets up to 10 times dimension and for all budgets up to dimension 80.

[1]  Michael O'Neill,et al.  Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines Manuscript No. Semantically-based Crossover in Genetic Programming: Application to Real-valued Symbolic Regression , 2022 .

[2]  Michael O'Neill,et al.  Grammatical evolution - evolutionary automatic programming in an arbitrary language , 2003, Genetic programming.

[3]  Lee Spector,et al.  On the difficulty of benchmarking inductive program synthesis methods , 2017, GECCO.

[4]  Peter A. Whigham,et al.  Grammatical bias for evolutionary learning , 1996 .

[5]  Lee Spector,et al.  General Program Synthesis Benchmark Suite , 2015, GECCO.

[6]  Emanuel Kitzelmann,et al.  Inductive Programming: A Survey of Program Synthesis Techniques , 2009, AAIP.

[7]  Holger Claussen,et al.  Multi-level Grammar Genetic Programming for Scheduling in Heterogeneous Networks , 2018, EuroGP.

[8]  Lee Spector,et al.  Solving Uncompromising Problems With Lexicase Selection , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[9]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Compositional Pattern Producing Networks : A Novel Abstraction of Development , 2007 .

[10]  Conor Ryan,et al.  Undirected Training of Run Transferable Libraries , 2005, EuroGP.

[11]  David Fagan,et al.  A Grammar Design Pattern for Arbitrary Program Synthesis Problems in Genetic Programming , 2017, EuroGP.

[12]  Simon M. Lucas,et al.  Learning Recursive Functions with Object Oriented Genetic Programming , 2006, EuroGP.

[13]  Thomas Helmuth Detailed Problem Descriptions for General Program Synthesis Benchmark Suite Technical Report UM-CS-2015-006 , 2015 .

[14]  Eric Medvet,et al.  An effective diversity promotion mechanism in grammatical evolution , 2017, GECCO.

[15]  Eric Medvet,et al.  Evolvability in grammatical evolution , 2017, GECCO.

[16]  Mark Kotanchek,et al.  Pursuing the Pareto Paradigm: Tournaments, Algorithm Variations and Ordinal Optimization , 2007 .

[17]  Dirk Thierens,et al.  Hierarchical problem solving with the linkage tree genetic algorithm , 2013, GECCO '13.

[18]  Lee Spector,et al.  Genetic Programming and Autoconstructive Evolution with the Push Programming Language , 2002, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[19]  A. E. Eiben,et al.  Online Gait Learning for Modular Robots with Arbitrary Shapes and Sizes , 2013, TPNC.

[20]  Alexandros Agapitos,et al.  Experiments in program synthesis with grammatical evolution: A focus on Integer Sorting , 2014, 2014 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC).

[21]  Leonardo Vanneschi,et al.  The K landscapes: a tunably difficult benchmark for genetic programming , 2011, GECCO '11.

[22]  Hussein A. Abbass,et al.  Grammar model-based program evolution , 2004, Proceedings of the 2004 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE Cat. No.04TH8753).

[23]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Evolving Neural Networks through Augmenting Topologies , 2002, Evolutionary Computation.

[24]  Wojciech Jaskowski,et al.  Better GP benchmarks: community survey results and proposals , 2012, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[25]  Sumit Gulwani,et al.  Automating string processing in spreadsheets using input-output examples , 2011, POPL '11.

[26]  Shlomo Moran,et al.  Optimal implementations of UPGMA and other common clustering algorithms , 2007, Inf. Process. Lett..

[27]  Susumu Katayama,et al.  Recent Improvements of MagicHaskeller , 2009, AAIP.

[28]  Lee Spector,et al.  Improving generalization of evolved programs through automatic simplification , 2017, GECCO.

[29]  David Fagan,et al.  Semantics-Based Crossover for Program Synthesis in Genetic Programming , 2017, Artificial Evolution.

[30]  Hussein A. Abbass,et al.  A Survey of Probabilistic Model Building Genetic Programming , 2006, Scalable Optimization via Probabilistic Modeling.

[31]  Peter A. Whigham,et al.  Grammar-based Genetic Programming: a survey , 2010, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.