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.

[1]  Kevin Leyton-Brown,et al.  Auto-WEKA: combined selection and hyperparameter optimization of classification algorithms , 2012, KDD.

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

[3]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Integrated vs. sequential approaches for selecting and tuning CMA-ES variants , 2020, GECCO.

[4]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Towards an Adaptive CMA-ES Configurator , 2018, PPSN.

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

[6]  Dimitris G. Papageorgiou,et al.  MEMPSODE: comparing particle swarm optimization and differential evolution within a hybrid memetic global optimization framework , 2012, GECCO '12.

[7]  Mario A. Muñoz,et al.  Algorithm selection for black-box continuous optimization problems: A survey on methods and challenges , 2015, Inf. Sci..

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

[9]  Michèle Sebag,et al.  Bi-population CMA-ES agorithms with surrogate models and line searches , 2013, GECCO.

[10]  Mahmoud Fouz,et al.  BBOB: Nelder-Mead with resize and halfruns , 2009, GECCO '09.

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

[12]  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.

[13]  Anne Auger,et al.  Comparing results of 31 algorithms from the black-box optimization benchmarking BBOB-2009 , 2010, GECCO '10.

[14]  László Pál,et al.  Benchmarking a hybrid multi level single linkagealgorithm on the bbob noiseless testbed , 2013, GECCO.

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

[16]  Dimitris G. Papageorgiou,et al.  MEMPSODE: an empirical assessment of local search algorithm impact on a memetic algorithm using noiseless testbed , 2012, GECCO '12.

[17]  K. Steiglitz,et al.  Adaptive step size random search , 1968 .

[18]  KirleyMichael,et al.  Algorithm selection for black-box continuous optimization problems , 2015 .

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

[20]  Patrick Siarry,et al.  A survey on optimization metaheuristics , 2013, Inf. Sci..

[21]  Hao Wang,et al.  Evolving the structure of Evolution Strategies , 2016, 2016 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI).

[22]  Michèle Sebag,et al.  Adaptive Operator Selection and Management in Evolutionary Algorithms , 2012, Autonomous Search.

[23]  I. Moser,et al.  Constraint Handling Guided by Landscape Analysis in Combinatorial and Continuous Search Spaces , 2019, Evolutionary Computation.

[24]  Saman K. Halgamuge,et al.  Exploratory Landscape Analysis of Continuous Space Optimization Problems Using Information Content , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[25]  Michael Affenzeller,et al.  A Comprehensive Survey on Fitness Landscape Analysis , 2012, Recent Advances in Intelligent Engineering Systems.

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

[27]  Nikolaus Hansen,et al.  A restart CMA evolution strategy with increasing population size , 2005, 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[28]  Anne Auger,et al.  COCO: Performance Assessment , 2016, ArXiv.

[29]  John A. W. McCall,et al.  Limitations of benchmark sets and landscape features for algorithm selection and performance prediction , 2019, GECCO.

[30]  Hao Wang,et al.  IOHprofiler: A Benchmarking and Profiling Tool for Iterative Optimization Heuristics , 2018, ArXiv.

[31]  Kate Smith-Miles,et al.  Performance Analysis of Continuous Black-Box Optimization Algorithms via Footprints in Instance Space , 2016, Evolutionary Computation.

[32]  Fabio Schoen,et al.  Random Linkage: a family of acceptance/rejection algorithms for global optimisation , 1999, Math. Program..

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

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

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

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