Initial design strategies and their effects on sequential model-based optimization: an exploratory case study based on BBOB

Sequential model-based optimization (SMBO) approaches are algorithms for solving problems that require computationally or otherwise expensive function evaluations. The key design principle of SMBO is a substitution of the true objective function by a surrogate, which is used to propose the point(s) to be evaluated next. SMBO algorithms are intrinsically modular, leaving the user with many important design choices. Significant research efforts go into understanding which settings perform best for which type of problems. Most works, however, focus on the choice of the model, the acquisition function, and the strategy used to optimize the latter. The choice of the initial sampling strategy, however, receives much less attention. Not surprisingly, quite diverging recommendations can be found in the literature. We analyze in this work how the size and the distribution of the initial sample influences the overall quality of the efficient global optimization (EGO) algorithm, a well-known SMBO approach. While, overall, small initial budgets using Halton sampling seem preferable, we also observe that the performance landscape is rather unstructured. We furthermore identify several situations in which EGO performs unfavorably against random sampling. Both observations indicate that an adaptive SMBO design could be beneficial, making SMBO an interesting test-bed for automated algorithm design.

[1]  John A. Nelder,et al.  A Simplex Method for Function Minimization , 1965, Comput. J..

[2]  Nando de Freitas,et al.  Taking the Human Out of the Loop: A Review of Bayesian Optimization , 2016, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[3]  F. Pillichshammer,et al.  Digital Nets and Sequences: Nets and sequences , 2010 .

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

[5]  Kaisa Miettinen,et al.  Automatic surrogate modelling technique selection based on features of optimization problems , 2019, GECCO.

[6]  Marius Lindauer,et al.  Towards White-box Benchmarks for Algorithm Control , 2019, ArXiv.

[7]  Marius Lindauer,et al.  Towards Assessing the Impact of Bayesian Optimization's Own Hyperparameters , 2019, ArXiv.

[8]  Sonja Kuhnt,et al.  Design and analysis of computer experiments , 2010 .

[9]  J. Mockus,et al.  The Bayesian approach to global optimization , 1989 .

[10]  Richard J. Beckman,et al.  A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output From a Computer Code , 2000, Technometrics.

[11]  A. Owen Randomly Permuted (t,m,s)-Nets and (t, s)-Sequences , 1995 .

[12]  Anne Auger,et al.  Real-Parameter Black-Box Optimization Benchmarking 2009: Noiseless Functions Definitions , 2009 .

[13]  I. Sobol On the distribution of points in a cube and the approximate evaluation of integrals , 1967 .

[14]  Bernd Bischl,et al.  Model-Based Multi-objective Optimization: Taxonomy, Multi-Point Proposal, Toolbox and Benchmark , 2015, EMO.

[15]  Heike Trautmann,et al.  Automated Algorithm Selection on Continuous Black-Box Problems by Combining Exploratory Landscape Analysis and Machine Learning , 2017, Evolutionary Computation.

[16]  Carl E. Rasmussen,et al.  Gaussian processes for machine learning , 2005, Adaptive computation and machine learning.

[17]  Kevin Leyton-Brown,et al.  Sequential Model-Based Optimization for General Algorithm Configuration , 2011, LION.

[18]  Juliane Müller,et al.  MATSuMoTo: The MATLAB Surrogate Model Toolbox For Computationally Expensive Black-Box Global Optimization Problems , 2014, 1404.4261.

[19]  Marc Schoenauer,et al.  Per instance algorithm configuration of CMA-ES with limited budget , 2017, GECCO.

[20]  Bernd Bischl,et al.  MOI-MBO: Multiobjective Infill for Parallel Model-Based Optimization , 2014, LION.

[21]  Lars Kotthoff,et al.  Auto-WEKA 2.0: Automatic model selection and hyperparameter optimization in WEKA , 2017, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[22]  Shu Tezuka,et al.  Another Random Scrambling of Digital ( t , s )-Sequences , 2002 .

[23]  Nikolaus Hansen,et al.  Completely Derandomized Self-Adaptation in Evolution Strategies , 2001, Evolutionary Computation.

[24]  Joshua D. Knowles,et al.  ParEGO: a hybrid algorithm with on-line landscape approximation for expensive multiobjective optimization problems , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[25]  J. Halton On the efficiency of certain quasi-random sequences of points in evaluating multi-dimensional integrals , 1960 .

[26]  Takuji Nishimura,et al.  Mersenne twister: a 623-dimensionally equidistributed uniform pseudo-random number generator , 1998, TOMC.

[27]  Kevin Leyton-Brown,et al.  Evaluating Component Solver Contributions to Portfolio-Based Algorithm Selectors , 2012, SAT.

[28]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[29]  Donald R. Jones,et al.  A Taxonomy of Global Optimization Methods Based on Response Surfaces , 2001, J. Glob. Optim..

[30]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Parameter Control in Evolutionary Algorithms , 2007, Parameter Setting in Evolutionary Algorithms.

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

[32]  Donald R. Jones,et al.  Efficient Global Optimization of Expensive Black-Box Functions , 1998, J. Glob. Optim..

[33]  Bernd Bischl,et al.  mlrMBO: A Modular Framework for Model-Based Optimization of Expensive Black-Box Functions , 2017, 1703.03373.

[34]  F. Pillichshammer,et al.  Digital Nets and Sequences: Discrepancy Theory and Quasi-Monte Carlo Integration , 2010 .

[35]  Benjamin Doerr,et al.  Theory of Parameter Control for Discrete Black-Box Optimization: Provable Performance Gains Through Dynamic Parameter Choices , 2018, Theory of Evolutionary Computation.

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

[37]  Bernd Bischl,et al.  The Impact of Initial Designs on the Performance of MATSuMoTo on the Noiseless BBOB-2015 Testbed: A Preliminary Study , 2015, GECCO.

[38]  Michel Gendreau,et al.  Hyper-heuristics: a survey of the state of the art , 2013, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[39]  Aaron Klein,et al.  BOHB: Robust and Efficient Hyperparameter Optimization at Scale , 2018, ICML.

[40]  Joshua D. Knowles,et al.  Initialization of Bayesian Optimization Viewed as Part of a Larger Algorithm Portfolio , 2017 .

[41]  Jakob Bossek,et al.  smoof: Single- and Multi-Objective Optimization Test Functions , 2017, R J..

[42]  Thomas Bartz-Beielstein,et al.  SPOT: An R Package For Automatic and Interactive Tuning of Optimization Algorithms by Sequential Parameter Optimization , 2010, ArXiv.

[43]  Ramana V. Grandhi,et al.  Improved Distributed Hypercube Sampling , 2002 .

[44]  Talal Rahwan,et al.  Using the Shapley Value to Analyze Algorithm Portfolios , 2016, AAAI.

[45]  Thomas Bartz-Beielstein,et al.  Considerations of Budget Allocation for Sequential Parameter Optimization (SPO) , 2006 .