Impact of Training Instance Selection on Automated Algorithm Selection Models for Numerical Black-box Optimization

The recently proposed MA-BBOB function generator provides a way to create numerical black-box benchmark problems based on the well-established BBOB suite. Initial studies on this generator highlighted its ability to smoothly transition between the component functions, both from a low-level landscape feature perspective, as well as with regard to algorithm performance. This suggests that MA-BBOB-generated functions can be an ideal testbed for automated machine learning methods, such as automated algorithm selection (AAS). In this paper, we generate 11800 functions in dimensions $d=2$ and $d=5$, respectively, and analyze the potential gains from AAS by studying performance complementarity within a set of eight algorithms. We combine this performance data with exploratory landscape features to create an AAS pipeline that we use to investigate how to efficiently select training sets within this space. We show that simply using the BBOB component functions for training yields poor test performance, while the ranking between uniformly chosen and diversity-based training sets strongly depends on the distribution of the test set.

Using the Empirical Attainment Function for Analyzing Single-objective Black-box Optimization Algorithms

A widely accepted way to assess the performance of iterative black-box optimizers is to analyze their empirical cumulative distribution function (ECDF) of pre-defined quality targets achieved not later than a given runtime. In this work, we consider an alternative approach, based on the empirical attainment function (EAF) and we show that the target-based ECDF is an approximation of the EAF. We argue that the EAF has several advantages over the target-based ECDF. In particular, it does not require defining a priori quality targets per function, captures performance differences more precisely, and enables the use of additional summary statistics that enrich the analysis. We also show that the average area over the convergence curves is a simpler-to-calculate, but equivalent, measure of anytime performance. To facilitate the accessibility of the EAF, we integrate a module to compute it into the IOHanalyzer platform. Finally, we illustrate the use of the EAF via synthetic examples and via the data available for the BBOB suite.

Large-scale Benchmarking of Metaphor-based Optimization Heuristics

The number of proposed iterative optimization heuristics is growing steadily, and with this growth, there have been many points of discussion within the wider community. One particular criticism that is raised towards many new algorithms is their focus on metaphors used to present the method, rather than emphasizing their potential algorithmic contributions. Several studies into popular metaphor-based algorithms have highlighted these problems, even showcasing algorithms that are functionally equivalent to older existing methods. Unfortunately, this detailed approach is not scalable to the whole set of metaphor-based algorithms. Because of this, we investigate ways in which benchmarking can shed light on these algorithms. To this end, we run a set of 294 algorithm implementations on the BBOB function suite. We investigate how the choice of the budget, the performance measure, or other aspects of experimental design impact the comparison of these algorithms. Our results emphasize why benchmarking is a key step in expanding our understanding of the algorithm space, and what challenges still need to be overcome to fully gauge the potential improvements to the state-of-the-art hiding behind the metaphors.

MA-BBOB: A Problem Generator for Black-Box Optimization Using Affine Combinations and Shifts

Choosing a set of benchmark problems is often a key component of any empirical evaluation of iterative optimization heuristics. In continuous, single-objective optimization, several sets of problems have become widespread, including the well-established BBOB suite. While this suite is designed to enable rigorous benchmarking, it is also commonly used for testing methods such as algorithm selection, which the suite was never designed around. We present the MA-BBOB function generator, which uses the BBOB suite as component functions in an affine combination. In this work, we describe the full procedure to create these affine combinations and highlight the trade-offs of several design decisions, specifically the choice to place the optimum uniformly at random in the domain. We then illustrate how this generator can be used to gain more low-level insight into the function landscapes through the use of exploratory landscape analysis. Finally, we show a potential use-case of MA-BBOB in generating a wide set of training and testing data for algorithm selectors. Using this setup, we show that the basic scheme of using a set of landscape features to predict the best algorithm does not lead to optimal results, and that an algorithm selector trained purely on the BBOB functions generalizes poorly to the affine combinations.

PS-AAS: Portfolio Selection for Automated Algorithm Selection in Black-Box Optimization

The performance of automated algorithm selection (AAS) strongly depends on the portfolio of algorithms to choose from. Selecting the portfolio is a non-trivial task that requires balancing the trade-off between the higher flexibility of large portfolios with the increased complexity of the AAS task. In practice, probably the most common way to choose the algorithms for the portfolio is a greedy selection of the algorithms that perform well in some reference tasks of interest. We set out in this work to investigate alternative, data-driven portfolio selection techniques. Our proposed method creates algorithm behavior meta-representations, constructs a graph from a set of algorithms based on their meta-representation similarity, and applies a graph algorithm to select a final portfolio of diverse, representative, and non-redundant algorithms. We evaluate two distinct meta-representation techniques (SHAP and performance2vec) for selecting complementary portfolios from a total of 324 different variants of CMA-ES for the task of optimizing the BBOB single-objective problems in dimensionalities 5 and 30 with different cut-off budgets. We test two types of portfolios: one related to overall algorithm behavior and the `personalized' one (related to algorithm behavior per each problem separately). We observe that the approach built on the performance2vec-based representations favors small portfolios with negligible error in the AAS task relative to the virtual best solver from the selected portfolio, whereas the portfolios built from the SHAP-based representations gain from higher flexibility at the cost of decreased performance of the AAS. Across most considered scenarios, personalized portfolios yield comparable or slightly better performance than the classical greedy approach. They outperform the full portfolio in all scenarios.

Optimizing with Low Budgets: a Comparison on the Black-box Optimization Benchmarking Suite and OpenAI Gym

The growing ubiquity of machine learning (ML) has led it to enter various areas of computer science, including black-box optimization (BBO). Recent research is particularly concerned with Bayesian optimization (BO). BO-based algorithms are popular in the ML community, as they are used for hyperparameter optimization and more generally for algorithm configuration. However, their efficiency decreases as the dimensionality of the problem and the budget of evaluations increase. Meanwhile, derivative-free optimization methods have evolved independently in the optimization community. Therefore, we urge to understand whether cross-fertilization is possible between the two communities, ML and BBO, i.e., whether algorithms that are heavily used in ML also work well in BBO and vice versa. Comparative experiments often involve rather small benchmarks and show visible problems in the experimental setup, such as poor initialization of baselines, overfitting due to problem-specific setting of hyperparameters, and low statistical significance. With this paper, we update and extend a comparative study presented by Hutter et al. in 2013. We compare BBO tools for ML with more classical heuristics, first on the well-known BBOB benchmark suite from the COCO environment and then on Direct Policy Search for OpenAI Gym, a reinforcement learning benchmark. Our results confirm that BO-based optimizers perform well on both benchmarks when budgets are limited, albeit with a higher computational cost, while they are often outperformed by algorithms from other families when the evaluation budget becomes larger. We also show that some algorithms from the BBO community perform surprisingly well on ML tasks.

Self-Adjusting Weighted Expected Improvement for Bayesian Optimization

Bayesian Optimization (BO) is a class of surrogate-based, sample-efficient algorithms for optimizing black-box problems with small evaluation budgets. The BO pipeline itself is highly configurable with many different design choices regarding the initial design, surrogate model, and acquisition function (AF). Unfortunately, our understanding of how to select suitable components for a problem at hand is very limited. In this work, we focus on the definition of the AF, whose main purpose is to balance the trade-off between exploring regions with high uncertainty and those with high promise for good solutions. We propose Self-Adjusting Weighted Expected Improvement (SAWEI), where we let the exploration-exploitation trade-off self-adjust in a data-driven manner, based on a convergence criterion for BO. On the noise-free black-box BBOB functions of the COCO benchmarking platform, our method exhibits a favorable any-time performance compared to handcrafted baselines and serves as a robust default choice for any problem structure. The suitability of our method also transfers to HPOBench. With SAWEI, we are a step closer to on-the-fly, data-driven, and robust BO designs that automatically adjust their sampling behavior to the problem at hand.

Comparing Algorithm Selection Approaches on Black-Box Optimization Problems

Performance complementarity of solvers available to tackle black-box optimization problems gives rise to the important task of algorithm selection (AS). Automated AS approaches can help replace tedious and labor-intensive manual selection, and have already shown promising performance in various optimization domains. Automated AS relies on machine learning (ML) techniques to recommend the best algorithm given the information about the problem instance. Unfortunately, there are no clear guidelines for choosing the most appropriate one from a variety of ML techniques. Tree-based models such as Random Forest or XGBoost have consistently demonstrated outstanding performance for automated AS. Transformers and other tabular deep learning models have also been increasingly applied in this context. We investigate in this work the impact of the choice of the ML technique on AS performance. We compare four ML models on the task of predicting the best solver for the BBOB problems for 7 different runtime budgets in 2 dimensions. While our results confirm that a per-instance AS has indeed impressive potential, we also show that the particular choice of the ML technique is of much minor importance.

Computing Star Discrepancies with Numerical Black-Box Optimization Algorithms

The $L_{\infty}$ star discrepancy is a measure for the regularity of a finite set of points taken from $[0,1)^d$. Low discrepancy point sets are highly relevant for Quasi-Monte Carlo methods in numerical integration and several other applications. Unfortunately, computing the $L_{\infty}$ star discrepancy of a given point set is known to be a hard problem, with the best exact algorithms falling short for even moderate dimensions around 8. However, despite the difficulty of finding the global maximum that defines the $L_{\infty}$ star discrepancy of the set, local evaluations at selected points are inexpensive. This makes the problem tractable by black-box optimization approaches. In this work we compare 8 popular numerical black-box optimization algorithms on the $L_{\infty}$ star discrepancy computation problem, using a wide set of instances in dimensions 2 to 15. We show that all used optimizers perform very badly on a large majority of the instances and that in many cases random search outperforms even the more sophisticated solvers. We suspect that state-of-the-art numerical black-box optimization techniques fail to capture the global structure of the problem, an important shortcoming that may guide their future development. We also provide a parallel implementation of the best-known algorithm to compute the discrepancy.

MA-BBOB: Many-Affine Combinations of BBOB Functions for Evaluating AutoML Approaches in Noiseless Numerical Black-Box Optimization Contexts

Extending a recent suggestion to generate new instances for numerical black-box optimization benchmarking by interpolating pairs of the well-established BBOB functions from the COmparing COntinuous Optimizers (COCO) platform, we propose in this work a further generalization that allows multiple affine combinations of the original instances and arbitrarily chosen locations of the global optima. We demonstrate that the MA-BBOB generator can help fill the instance space, while overall patterns in algorithm performance are preserved. By combining the landscape features of the problems with the performance data, we pose the question of whether these features are as useful for algorithm selection as previous studies suggested. MA-BBOB is built on the publicly available IOHprofiler platform, which facilitates standardized experimentation routines, provides access to the interactive IOHanalyzer module for performance analysis and visualization, and enables comparisons with the rich and growing data collection available for the (MA-)BBOB functions.