The importance of implementation details and parameter settings in black-box optimization: a case study on Gaussian estimation-of-distribution algorithms and circles-in-a-square packing problems

We consider a scalable problem that has strong ties with real-world problems, can be compactly formulated and efficiently evaluated, yet is not trivial to solve and has interesting characteristics that differ from most commonly used benchmark problems: packing n circles in a square (CiaS). Recently, a first study that used basic Gaussian EDAs indicated that typically suggested algorithmic parameter settings do not necessarily transfer well to the CiaS problem. In this article, we consider also AMaLGaM, an enhanced Gaussian EDA, as well as arguably the most powerful real-valued black-box optimization algorithm to date, CMA-ES, which can also be seen as a further enhanced Gaussian EDA. We study whether the well-known performance on typical benchmark problems extends to the CiaS problem. We find that although the enhancements over a basic Gaussian EDA result in superior performance, the further efficiency enhancements in CMA-ES are not highly impactful. Instead, the most impactful features are how constraint handling is performed, how large the population size is, whether a full covariance matrix is used and whether restart techniques are used. We further show that a previously published version of AMaLGaM that does not require the user to set the the population size parameter is capable of solving the problem and we derive the scalability of the required number of function evaluations to solve the problem up to 99.99 % of the known optimal value for up to 30 circles.

[1]  Andrea Grosso,et al.  Solving the problem of packing equal and unequal circles in a circular container , 2010, J. Glob. Optim..

[2]  Tibor Csendes,et al.  Global Optimization in Geometry — Circle Packing into the Square , 2005 .

[3]  Martin Pelikan,et al.  Scalable Optimization via Probabilistic Modeling: From Algorithms to Applications (Studies in Computational Intelligence) , 2006 .

[4]  Bernardetta Addis,et al.  Disk Packing in a Square: A New Global Optimization Approach , 2008, INFORMS J. Comput..

[5]  P. N. Suganthan,et al.  Ensemble of niching algorithms , 2010, Inf. Sci..

[6]  Martin Pelikan,et al.  Scalable Optimization via Probabilistic Modeling , 2006, Studies in Computational Intelligence.

[7]  Dirk Thierens,et al.  Benchmarking Parameter-Free AMaLGaM on Functions With and Without Noise , 2013, Evolutionary Computation.

[8]  K. Deb An Efficient Constraint Handling Method for Genetic Algorithms , 2000 .

[9]  Marcus Gallagher,et al.  Fitness Landscape Analysis of Circles in a Square Packing Problems , 2014, SEAL.

[10]  Carlos A. Coello Coello,et al.  THEORETICAL AND NUMERICAL CONSTRAINT-HANDLING TECHNIQUES USED WITH EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHMS: A SURVEY OF THE STATE OF THE ART , 2002 .

[11]  Marcus Gallagher Investigating circles in a square packing problems as a realistic benchmark for continuous metaheuristic optimization algorithms , 2009 .

[12]  L. Darrell Whitley,et al.  Evaluating Evolutionary Algorithms , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[13]  Marcus Gallagher,et al.  Beware the Parameters: Estimation of Distribution Algorithms Applied to Circles in a Square Packing , 2012, PPSN.

[14]  Nikolaus Hansen,et al.  The CMA Evolution Strategy: A Comparing Review , 2006, Towards a New Evolutionary Computation.

[15]  J. A. Lozano,et al.  Estimation of Distribution Algorithms: A New Tool for Evolutionary Computation , 2001 .

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

[17]  János D. Pintér,et al.  Solving circle packing problems by global optimization: Numerical results and industrial applications , 2008, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[18]  Dirk Thierens,et al.  Expanding from Discrete to Continuous Estimation of Distribution Algorithms: The IDEA , 2000, PPSN.