To Switch or not to Switch: Predicting the Benefit of Switching between Algorithms based on Trajectory Features

Dynamic algorithm selection aims to exploit the complementarity of multiple optimization algorithms by switching between them during the search. While these kinds of dynamic algorithms have been shown to have potential to outperform their component algorithms, it is still unclear how this potential can best be realized. One promising approach is to make use of landscape features to enable a per-run trajectory-based switch. Here, the samples seen by the first algorithm are used to create a set of features which describe the landscape from the perspective of the algorithm. These features are then used to predict what algorithm to switch to. In this work, we extend this per-run trajectory-based approach to consider a wide variety of potential points at which to perform the switch. We show that using a sliding window to capture the local landscape features contains information which can be used to predict whether a switch at that point would be beneficial to future performance. By analyzing the resulting models, we identify what features are most important to these predictions. Finally, by evaluating the importance of features and comparing these values between multiple algorithms, we show clear differences in the way the second algorithm interacts with the local landscape features found before the switch.

[1]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Learning the characteristics of engineering optimization problems with applications in automotive crash , 2022, GECCO.

[2]  Noor H. Awad,et al.  Automated Dynamic Algorithm Configuration , 2022, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[3]  Carola Doerr,et al.  Per-run Algorithm Selection with Warm-starting using Trajectory-based Features , 2022, PPSN.

[4]  T. Back,et al.  Analyzing the impact of undersampling on the benchmarking and configuration of evolutionary algorithms , 2022, GECCO.

[5]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  IOHexperimenter: Benchmarking Platform for Iterative Optimization Heuristics , 2021, Evolutionary computation.

[6]  Marius Lindauer,et al.  DACBench: A Benchmark Library for Dynamic Algorithm Configuration , 2021, IJCAI.

[7]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Tuning as a means of assessing the benefits of new ideas in interplay with existing algorithmic modules , 2021, GECCO Companion.

[8]  Tome Eftimov,et al.  Towards Feature-Based Performance Regression Using Trajectory Data , 2021, EvoApplications.

[9]  Benjamin Doerr,et al.  Towards Explainable Exploratory Landscape Analysis: Extreme Feature Selection for Classifying BBOB Functions , 2021, EvoApplications.

[10]  O. Teytaud,et al.  Black-Box Optimization Revisited: Improving Algorithm Selection Wizards Through Massive Benchmarking , 2020, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[11]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  IOHanalyzer: Detailed Performance Analyses for Iterative Optimization Heuristics , 2020, ACM Trans. Evol. Learn. Optim..

[12]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Towards dynamic algorithm selection for numerical black-box optimization: investigating BBOB as a use case , 2020, GECCO.

[13]  Carola Doerr,et al.  Adaptive landscape analysis , 2019, GECCO.

[14]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Online selection of CMA-ES variants , 2019, GECCO.

[15]  Heike Trautmann,et al.  Automated Algorithm Selection: Survey and Perspectives , 2018, Evolutionary Computation.

[16]  Leland McInnes,et al.  UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction , 2018, ArXiv.

[17]  Scott Lundberg,et al.  A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions , 2017, NIPS.

[18]  Heike Trautmann,et al.  The R-Package FLACCO for exploratory landscape analysis with applications to multi-objective optimization problems , 2016, 2016 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC).

[19]  Anne Auger,et al.  COCO: a platform for comparing continuous optimizers in a black-box setting , 2016, Optim. Methods Softw..

[20]  Mark Hoogendoorn,et al.  Parameter Control in Evolutionary Algorithms: Trends and Challenges , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[21]  Alex S. Fukunaga,et al.  Success-history based parameter adaptation for Differential Evolution , 2013, 2013 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[22]  Carlos Cotta,et al.  Memetic algorithms and memetic computing optimization: A literature review , 2012, Swarm Evol. Comput..

[23]  Bernd Bischl,et al.  Exploratory landscape analysis , 2011, GECCO '11.

[24]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[25]  Rainer Storn,et al.  Differential Evolution – A Simple and Efficient Heuristic for global Optimization over Continuous Spaces , 1997, J. Glob. Optim..

[26]  Nikolaus Hansen,et al.  Adapting arbitrary normal mutation distributions in evolution strategies: the covariance matrix adaptation , 1996, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[27]  James Kennedy,et al.  Particle swarm optimization , 2002, Proceedings of ICNN'95 - International Conference on Neural Networks.

[28]  I. Amato,et al.  To switch or not to switch? , 2008 .

[29]  R. Geoff Dromey,et al.  An algorithm for the selection problem , 1986, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[30]  T. Back,et al.  Chaining of Numerical Black-box Algorithms: Warm-Starting and Switching Points , 2022, ArXiv.

[31]  Marius Lindauer,et al.  Dynamic Algorithm Configuration: Foundation of a New Meta-Algorithmic Framework , 2020, ECAI.

[32]  Marius Lindauer,et al.  Learning Step-Size Adaptation in CMA-ES , 2020, PPSN.

[33]  Leslie Pérez Cáceres,et al.  The irace package: Iterated racing for automatic algorithm configuration , 2016 .

[34]  N. Hansen,et al.  Real-Parameter Black-Box Optimization Benchmarking 2009: Noiseless Functions Definitions , 2009 .

[35]  M. Powell A Direct Search Optimization Method That Models the Objective and Constraint Functions by Linear Interpolation , 1994 .