Showing 1–17 of 17 results for author: López-Ibáñez, M

An adaptive approach to Bayesian Optimization with switching costs

Authors: Stefan Pricopie, Richard Allmendinger, Manuel Lopez-Ibanez, Clyde Fare, Matt Benatan, Joshua Knowles

Abstract: We investigate modifications to Bayesian Optimization for a resource-constrained setting of sequential experimental design where changes to certain design variables of the search space incur a switching cost. This models the scenario where there is a trade-off between evaluating more while maintaining the same setup, or switching and restricting the number of possible evaluations due to the incurr… ▽ More We investigate modifications to Bayesian Optimization for a resource-constrained setting of sequential experimental design where changes to certain design variables of the search space incur a switching cost. This models the scenario where there is a trade-off between evaluating more while maintaining the same setup, or switching and restricting the number of possible evaluations due to the incurred cost. We adapt two process-constrained batch algorithms to this sequential problem formulation, and propose two new methods: one cost-aware and one cost-ignorant. We validate and compare the algorithms using a set of 7 scalable test functions in different dimensionalities and switching-cost settings for 30 total configurations. Our proposed cost-aware hyperparameter-free algorithm yields comparable results to tuned process-constrained algorithms in all settings we considered, suggesting some degree of robustness to varying landscape features and cost trade-offs. This method starts to outperform the other algorithms with increasing switching-cost. Our work broadens out from other recent Bayesian Optimization studies in resource-constrained settings that consider a batch setting only. While the contributions of this work are relevant to the general class of resource-constrained problems, they are particularly relevant to problems where adaptability to varying resource availability is of high importance △ Less

Submitted 14 May, 2024; originally announced May 2024.

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

Authors: Manuel López-Ibáñez, Diederick Vermetten, Johann Dreo, Carola Doerr

Abstract: 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 ar… ▽ More 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. △ Less

Submitted 2 April, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

Analysis of modular CMA-ES on strict box-constrained problems in the SBOX-COST benchmarking suite

Authors: Diederick Vermetten, Manuel López-Ibáñez, Olaf Mersmann, Richard Allmendinger, Anna V. Kononova

Abstract: Box-constraints limit the domain of decision variables and are common in real-world optimization problems, for example, due to physical, natural or spatial limitations. Consequently, solutions violating a box-constraint may not be evaluable. This assumption is often ignored in the literature, e.g., existing benchmark suites, such as COCO/BBOB, allow the optimizer to evaluate infeasible solutions.… ▽ More Box-constraints limit the domain of decision variables and are common in real-world optimization problems, for example, due to physical, natural or spatial limitations. Consequently, solutions violating a box-constraint may not be evaluable. This assumption is often ignored in the literature, e.g., existing benchmark suites, such as COCO/BBOB, allow the optimizer to evaluate infeasible solutions. This paper presents an initial study on the strict-box-constrained benchmarking suite (SBOX-COST), which is a variant of the well-known BBOB benchmark suite that enforces box-constraints by returning an invalid evaluation value for infeasible solutions. Specifically, we want to understand the performance difference between BBOB and SBOX-COST as a function of two initialization methods and six constraint-handling strategies all tested with modular CMA-ES. We find that, contrary to what may be expected, handling box-constraints by saturation is not always better than not handling them at all. However, across all BBOB functions, saturation is better than not handling, and the difference increases with the number of dimensions. Strictly enforcing box-constraints also has a clear negative effect on the performance of classical CMA-ES (with uniform random initialization and no constraint handling), especially as problem dimensionality increases. △ Less

Submitted 24 May, 2023; originally announced May 2023.

Applying Ising Machines to Multi-objective QUBOs

Authors: Mayowa Ayodele, Richard Allmendinger, Manuel López-Ibáñez, Arnaud Liefooghe, Matthieu Parizy

Abstract: Multi-objective optimisation problems involve finding solutions with varying trade-offs between multiple and often conflicting objectives. Ising machines are physical devices that aim to find the absolute or approximate ground states of an Ising model. To apply Ising machines to multi-objective problems, a weighted sum objective function is used to convert multi-objective into single-objective pro… ▽ More Multi-objective optimisation problems involve finding solutions with varying trade-offs between multiple and often conflicting objectives. Ising machines are physical devices that aim to find the absolute or approximate ground states of an Ising model. To apply Ising machines to multi-objective problems, a weighted sum objective function is used to convert multi-objective into single-objective problems. However, deriving scalarisation weights that archives evenly distributed solutions across the Pareto front is not trivial. Previous work has shown that adaptive weights based on dichotomic search, and one based on averages of previously explored weights can explore the Pareto front quicker than uniformly generated weights. However, these adaptive methods have only been applied to bi-objective problems in the past. In this work, we extend the adaptive method based on averages in two ways: (i)~we extend the adaptive method of deriving scalarisation weights for problems with two or more objectives, and (ii)~we use an alternative measure of distance to improve performance. We compare the proposed method with existing ones and show that it leads to the best performance on multi-objective Unconstrained Binary Quadratic Programming (mUBQP) instances with 3 and 4 objectives and that it is competitive with the best one for instances with 2 objectives. △ Less

Submitted 19 May, 2023; originally announced May 2023.

ACM Class: G.1.6

Multi-Objective Archiving

Authors: Miqing Li, Manuel López-Ibáñez, Xin Yao

Abstract: Most multi-objective optimisation algorithms maintain an archive explicitly or implicitly during their search. Such an archive can be solely used to store high-quality solutions presented to the decision maker, but in many cases may participate in the search process (e.g., as the population in evolutionary computation). Over the last two decades, archiving, the process of comparing new solutions w… ▽ More Most multi-objective optimisation algorithms maintain an archive explicitly or implicitly during their search. Such an archive can be solely used to store high-quality solutions presented to the decision maker, but in many cases may participate in the search process (e.g., as the population in evolutionary computation). Over the last two decades, archiving, the process of comparing new solutions with previous ones and deciding how to update the archive/population, stands as an important issue in evolutionary multi-objective optimisation (EMO). This is evidenced by constant efforts from the community on develo** various effective archiving methods, ranging from conventional Pareto-based methods to more recent indicator-based and decomposition-based ones. However, the focus of these efforts is on empirical performance comparison in terms of specific quality indicators; there is lack of systematic study of archiving methods from a general theoretical perspective. In this paper, we attempt to conduct a systematic overview of multi-objective archiving, in the hope of paving the way to understand archiving algorithms from a holistic perspective of theory and practice, and more importantly providing a guidance on how to design theoretically desirable and practically useful archiving algorithms. In doing so, we also present that archiving algorithms based on weakly Pareto compliant indicators (e.g., epsilon-indicator), as long as designed properly, can achieve the same theoretical desirables as archivers based on Pareto compliant indicators (e.g., hypervolume indicator). Such desirables include the property limit-optimal, the limit form of the possible optimal property that a bounded archiving algorithm can have with respect to the most general form of superiority between solution sets. △ Less

Submitted 13 September, 2023; v1 submitted 16 March, 2023; originally announced March 2023.

Comments: 21 pages, 4 figures, journal

A Study of Scalarisation Techniques for Multi-Objective QUBO Solving

Authors: Mayowa Ayodele, Richard Allmendinger, Manuel López-Ibáñez, Matthieu Parizy

Abstract: In recent years, there has been significant research interest in solving Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimisation (QUBO) problems. Physics-inspired optimisation algorithms have been proposed for deriving optimal or sub-optimal solutions to QUBOs. These methods are particularly attractive within the context of using specialised hardware, such as quantum computers, application specific CMOS and o… ▽ More In recent years, there has been significant research interest in solving Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimisation (QUBO) problems. Physics-inspired optimisation algorithms have been proposed for deriving optimal or sub-optimal solutions to QUBOs. These methods are particularly attractive within the context of using specialised hardware, such as quantum computers, application specific CMOS and other high performance computing resources for solving optimisation problems. These solvers are then applied to QUBO formulations of combinatorial optimisation problems. Quantum and quantum-inspired optimisation algorithms have shown promising performance when applied to academic benchmarks as well as real-world problems. However, QUBO solvers are single objective solvers. To make them more efficient at solving problems with multiple objectives, a decision on how to convert such multi-objective problems to single-objective problems need to be made. In this study, we compare methods of deriving scalarisation weights when combining two objectives of the cardinality constrained mean-variance portfolio optimisation problem into one. We show significant performance improvement (measured in terms of hypervolume) when using a method that iteratively fills the largest space in the Pareto front compared to a näive approach using uniformly generated weights. △ Less

Submitted 20 October, 2022; originally announced October 2022.

MSC Class: 90C29; 90C20; 90C27 ACM Class: G.2.1; I.2.8

Improving Nevergrad's Algorithm Selection Wizard NGOpt through Automated Algorithm Configuration

Authors: Risto Trajanov, Ana Nikolikj, Gjorg**a Cenikj, Fabien Teytaud, Mathurin Videau, Olivier Teytaud, Tome Eftimov, Manuel López-Ibáñez, Carola Doerr

Abstract: Algorithm selection wizards are effective and versatile tools that automatically select an optimization algorithm given high-level information about the problem and available computational resources, such as number and type of decision variables, maximal number of evaluations, possibility to parallelize evaluations, etc. State-of-the-art algorithm selection wizards are complex and difficult to imp… ▽ More Algorithm selection wizards are effective and versatile tools that automatically select an optimization algorithm given high-level information about the problem and available computational resources, such as number and type of decision variables, maximal number of evaluations, possibility to parallelize evaluations, etc. State-of-the-art algorithm selection wizards are complex and difficult to improve. We propose in this work the use of automated configuration methods for improving their performance by finding better configurations of the algorithms that compose them. In particular, we use elitist iterated racing (irace) to find CMA configurations for specific artificial benchmarks that replace the hand-crafted CMA configurations currently used in the NGOpt wizard provided by the Nevergrad platform. We discuss in detail the setup of irace for the purpose of generating configurations that work well over the diverse set of problem instances within each benchmark. Our approach improves the performance of the NGOpt wizard, even on benchmark suites that were not part of the tuning by irace. △ Less

Submitted 9 September, 2022; originally announced September 2022.

Comments: Proc. of PPSN 2022

Multi-objective QUBO Solver: Bi-objective Quadratic Assignment

Authors: Mayowa Ayodele, Richard Allmendinger, Manuel López-Ibáñez, Matthieu Parizy

Abstract: Quantum and quantum-inspired optimisation algorithms are designed to solve problems represented in binary, quadratic and unconstrained form. Combinatorial optimisation problems are therefore often formulated as Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimisation Problems (QUBO) to solve them with these algorithms. Moreover, these QUBO solvers are often implemented using specialised hardware to achieve eno… ▽ More Quantum and quantum-inspired optimisation algorithms are designed to solve problems represented in binary, quadratic and unconstrained form. Combinatorial optimisation problems are therefore often formulated as Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimisation Problems (QUBO) to solve them with these algorithms. Moreover, these QUBO solvers are often implemented using specialised hardware to achieve enormous speedups, e.g. Fujitsu's Digital Annealer (DA) and D-Wave's Quantum Annealer. However, these are single-objective solvers, while many real-world problems feature multiple conflicting objectives. Thus, a common practice when using these QUBO solvers is to scalarise such multi-objective problems into a sequence of single-objective problems. Due to design trade-offs of these solvers, formulating each scalarisation may require more time than finding a local optimum. We present the first attempt to extend the algorithm supporting a commercial QUBO solver as a multi-objective solver that is not based on scalarisation. The proposed multi-objective DA algorithm is validated on the bi-objective Quadratic Assignment Problem. We observe that algorithm performance significantly depends on the archiving strategy adopted, and that combining DA with non-scalarisation methods to optimise multiple objectives outperforms the current scalarised version of the DA in terms of final solution quality. △ Less

Submitted 26 May, 2022; originally announced May 2022.

Comments: The Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference 2022 (GECCO22)

ACM Class: C.1.4; G.2.1

Analyzing the Impact of Undersampling on the Benchmarking and Configuration of Evolutionary Algorithms

Authors: Diederick Vermetten, Hao Wang, Manuel López-Ibañez, Carola Doerr, Thomas Bäck

Abstract: The stochastic nature of iterative optimization heuristics leads to inherently noisy performance measurements. Since these measurements are often gathered once and then used repeatedly, the number of collected samples will have a significant impact on the reliability of algorithm comparisons. We show that care should be taken when making decisions based on limited data. Particularly, we show that… ▽ More The stochastic nature of iterative optimization heuristics leads to inherently noisy performance measurements. Since these measurements are often gathered once and then used repeatedly, the number of collected samples will have a significant impact on the reliability of algorithm comparisons. We show that care should be taken when making decisions based on limited data. Particularly, we show that the number of runs used in many benchmarking studies, e.g., the default value of 15 suggested by the COCO environment, can be insufficient to reliably rank algorithms on well-known numerical optimization benchmarks. Additionally, methods for automated algorithm configuration are sensitive to insufficient sample sizes. This may result in the configurator choosing a `lucky' but poor-performing configuration despite exploring better ones. We show that relying on mean performance values, as many configurators do, can require a large number of runs to provide accurate comparisons between the considered configurations. Common statistical tests can greatly improve the situation in most cases but not always. We show examples of performance losses of more than 20%, even when using statistical races to dynamically adjust the number of runs, as done by irace. Our results underline the importance of appropriately considering the statistical distribution of performance values. △ Less

Submitted 22 April, 2022; v1 submitted 20 April, 2022; originally announced April 2022.

Comments: To be published in proceedings of Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO 22), July 9-13, 2022, Boston, MA, USA. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3512290.3528799

Are Evolutionary Algorithms Safe Optimizers?

Authors: Youngmin Kim, Richard Allmendinger, Manuel López-Ibáñez

Abstract: We consider a type of constrained optimization problem, where the violation of a constraint leads to an irrevocable loss, such as breakage of a valuable experimental resource/platform or loss of human life. Such problems are referred to as safe optimization problems (SafeOPs). While SafeOPs have received attention in the machine learning community in recent years, there was little interest in the… ▽ More We consider a type of constrained optimization problem, where the violation of a constraint leads to an irrevocable loss, such as breakage of a valuable experimental resource/platform or loss of human life. Such problems are referred to as safe optimization problems (SafeOPs). While SafeOPs have received attention in the machine learning community in recent years, there was little interest in the evolutionary computation (EC) community despite some early attempts between 2009 and 2011. Moreover, there is a lack of acceptable guidelines on how to benchmark different algorithms for SafeOPs, an area where the EC community has significant experience in. Driven by the need for more efficient algorithms and benchmark guidelines for SafeOPs, the objective of this paper is to reignite the interest of this problem class in the EC community. To achieve this we (i) provide a formal definition of SafeOPs and contrast it to other types of optimization problems that the EC community is familiar with, (ii) investigate the impact of key SafeOP parameters on the performance of selected safe optimization algorithms, (iii) benchmark EC against state-of-the-art safe optimization algorithms from the machine learning community, and (iv) provide an open-source Python framework to replicate and extend our work. △ Less

Submitted 6 May, 2022; v1 submitted 24 March, 2022; originally announced March 2022.

Comments: To be published in proceedings of Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO 22), July 9-13, 2022, Boston, MA, USA. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3512290.3528818

ACM Class: I.2.8

The First AI4TSP Competition: Learning to Solve Stochastic Routing Problems

Authors: Laurens Bliek, Paulo da Costa, Reza Refaei Afshar, Yingqian Zhang, Tom Catshoek, Daniël Vos, Sicco Verwer, Fynn Schmitt-Ulms, André Hottung, Tapan Shah, Meinolf Sellmann, Kevin Tierney, Carl Perreault-Lafleur, Caroline Leboeuf, Federico Bobbio, Justine Pepin, Warley Almeida Silva, Ricardo Gama, Hugo L. Fernandes, Martin Zaefferer, Manuel López-Ibáñez, Ekhine Irurozki

Abstract: This paper reports on the first international competition on AI for the traveling salesman problem (TSP) at the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2021 (IJCAI-21). The TSP is one of the classical combinatorial optimization problems, with many variants inspired by real-world applications. This first competition asked the participants to develop algorithms to solve a time-depe… ▽ More This paper reports on the first international competition on AI for the traveling salesman problem (TSP) at the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2021 (IJCAI-21). The TSP is one of the classical combinatorial optimization problems, with many variants inspired by real-world applications. This first competition asked the participants to develop algorithms to solve a time-dependent orienteering problem with stochastic weights and time windows (TD-OPSWTW). It focused on two types of learning approaches: surrogate-based optimization and deep reinforcement learning. In this paper, we describe the problem, the setup of the competition, the winning methods, and give an overview of the results. The winning methods described in this work have advanced the state-of-the-art in using AI for stochastic routing problems. Overall, by organizing this competition we have introduced routing problems as an interesting problem setting for AI researchers. The simulator of the problem has been made open-source and can be used by other researchers as a benchmark for new AI methods. △ Less

Submitted 25 January, 2022; originally announced January 2022.

Comments: 21 pages

MSC Class: 68T05

Extensible Logging and Empirical Attainment Function for IOHexperimenter

Authors: Johann Dreo, Manuel López-Ibáñez

Abstract: In order to allow for large-scale, landscape-aware, per-instance algorithm selection, a benchmarking platform software is key. IOHexperimenter provides a large set of synthetic problems, a logging system, and a fast implementation. In this work, we refactor IOHexperimenter's logging system, in order to make it more extensible and modular. Using this new system, we implement a new logger, which aim… ▽ More In order to allow for large-scale, landscape-aware, per-instance algorithm selection, a benchmarking platform software is key. IOHexperimenter provides a large set of synthetic problems, a logging system, and a fast implementation. In this work, we refactor IOHexperimenter's logging system, in order to make it more extensible and modular. Using this new system, we implement a new logger, which aims at computing performance metrics of an algorithm across a benchmark. The logger computes the most generic view on an anytime stochastic heuristic performances, in the form of the Empirical Attainment Function (EAF). We also provide some common statistics on the EAF and its discrete counterpart, the Empirical Attainment Histogram. Our work has eventually been merged in the IOHexperimenter codebase. △ Less

Submitted 29 September, 2021; v1 submitted 28 September, 2021; originally announced September 2021.

Comments: 11 pages

Reproducibility in Evolutionary Computation

Authors: Manuel López-Ibáñez, Juergen Branke, Luís Paquete

Abstract: Experimental studies are prevalent in Evolutionary Computation (EC), and concerns about the reproducibility and replicability of such studies have increased in recent times, reflecting similar concerns in other scientific fields. In this article, we discuss, within the context of EC, the different types of reproducibility and suggest a classification that refines the badge system of the Associatio… ▽ More Experimental studies are prevalent in Evolutionary Computation (EC), and concerns about the reproducibility and replicability of such studies have increased in recent times, reflecting similar concerns in other scientific fields. In this article, we discuss, within the context of EC, the different types of reproducibility and suggest a classification that refines the badge system of the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) adopted by ACM Transactions on Evolutionary Learning and Optimization (https://dlnext.acm.org/journal/telo). We identify cultural and technical obstacles to reproducibility in the EC field. Finally, we provide guidelines and suggest tools that may help to overcome some of these reproducibility obstacles. △ Less

Submitted 29 June, 2021; v1 submitted 5 February, 2021; originally announced February 2021.

Journal ref: ACM Transactions on Evolutionary Learning and Optimization, 2021

Safe Learning and Optimization Techniques: Towards a Survey of the State of the Art

Authors: Youngmin Kim, Richard Allmendinger, Manuel López-Ibáñez

Abstract: Safe learning and optimization deals with learning and optimization problems that avoid, as much as possible, the evaluation of non-safe input points, which are solutions, policies, or strategies that cause an irrecoverable loss (e.g., breakage of a machine or equipment, or life threat). Although a comprehensive survey of safe reinforcement learning algorithms was published in 2015, a number of ne… ▽ More Safe learning and optimization deals with learning and optimization problems that avoid, as much as possible, the evaluation of non-safe input points, which are solutions, policies, or strategies that cause an irrecoverable loss (e.g., breakage of a machine or equipment, or life threat). Although a comprehensive survey of safe reinforcement learning algorithms was published in 2015, a number of new algorithms have been proposed thereafter, and related works in active learning and in optimization were not considered. This paper reviews those algorithms from a number of domains including reinforcement learning, Gaussian process regression and classification, evolutionary algorithms, and active learning. We provide the fundamental concepts on which the reviewed algorithms are based and a characterization of the individual algorithms. We conclude by explaining how the algorithms are connected and suggestions for future research. △ Less

Submitted 23 June, 2021; v1 submitted 23 January, 2021; originally announced January 2021.

Comments: The final authenticated publication was made In: Heintz F., Milano M., O'Sullivan B. (eds) Trustworthy AI - Integrating Learning, Optimization and Reasoning. TAILOR 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12641. Springer, Cham. The final authenticated publication is available online at \<https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73959-1_12>

ACM Class: I.2.8

Benchmarking in Optimization: Best Practice and Open Issues

Authors: Thomas Bartz-Beielstein, Carola Doerr, Daan van den Berg, Jakob Bossek, Sowmya Chandrasekaran, Tome Eftimov, Andreas Fischbach, Pascal Kerschke, William La Cava, Manuel Lopez-Ibanez, Katherine M. Malan, Jason H. Moore, Boris Naujoks, Patryk Orzechowski, Vanessa Volz, Markus Wagner, Thomas Weise

Abstract: This survey compiles ideas and recommendations from more than a dozen researchers with different backgrounds and from different institutes around the world. Promoting best practice in benchmarking is its main goal. The article discusses eight essential topics in benchmarking: clearly stated goals, well-specified problems, suitable algorithms, adequate performance measures, thoughtful analysis, eff… ▽ More This survey compiles ideas and recommendations from more than a dozen researchers with different backgrounds and from different institutes around the world. Promoting best practice in benchmarking is its main goal. The article discusses eight essential topics in benchmarking: clearly stated goals, well-specified problems, suitable algorithms, adequate performance measures, thoughtful analysis, effective and efficient designs, comprehensible presentations, and guaranteed reproducibility. The final goal is to provide well-accepted guidelines (rules) that might be useful for authors and reviewers. As benchmarking in optimization is an active and evolving field of research this manuscript is meant to co-evolve over time by means of periodic updates. △ Less

Submitted 16 December, 2020; v1 submitted 7 July, 2020; originally announced July 2020.

Comments: Version 2

MSC Class: 68W50 ACM Class: A.1; B.8.0; G.1.6; G.4; I.2.8

Unified Framework for the Adaptive Operator Selection of Discrete Parameters

Authors: Mudita Sharma, Manuel Lopez-Ibanez, Dimitar Kazakov

Abstract: We conduct an exhaustive survey of adaptive selection of operators (AOS) in Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs). We simplified the AOS structure by adding more components to the framework to built upon the existing categorisation of AOS methods. In addition to simplifying, we looked at the commonality among AOS methods from literature to generalise them. Each component is presented with a number of alte… ▽ More We conduct an exhaustive survey of adaptive selection of operators (AOS) in Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs). We simplified the AOS structure by adding more components to the framework to built upon the existing categorisation of AOS methods. In addition to simplifying, we looked at the commonality among AOS methods from literature to generalise them. Each component is presented with a number of alternative choices, each represented with a formula. We make three sets of comparisons. First, the methods from literature are tested on the BBOB test bed with their default hyper parameters. Second, the hyper parameters of these methods are tuned using an offline configurator known as IRACE. Third, for a given set of problems, we use IRACE to select the best combination of components and tune their hyper parameters. △ Less

Submitted 12 May, 2020; originally announced May 2020.

Local Optimal Sets and Bounded Archiving on Multi-objective NK-Landscapes with Correlated Objectives

Authors: Manuel López-Ibáñez, Arnaud Liefooghe, Sébastien Verel

Abstract: The properties of local optimal solutions in multi-objective combinatorial optimization problems are crucial for the effectiveness of local search algorithms, particularly when these algorithms are based on Pareto dominance. Such local search algorithms typically return a set of mutually nondominated Pareto local optimal (PLO) solutions, that is, a PLO-set. This paper investigates two aspects of P… ▽ More The properties of local optimal solutions in multi-objective combinatorial optimization problems are crucial for the effectiveness of local search algorithms, particularly when these algorithms are based on Pareto dominance. Such local search algorithms typically return a set of mutually nondominated Pareto local optimal (PLO) solutions, that is, a PLO-set. This paper investigates two aspects of PLO-sets by means of experiments with Pareto local search (PLS). First, we examine the impact of several problem characteristics on the properties of PLO-sets for multi-objective NK-landscapes with correlated objectives. In particular, we report that either increasing the number of objectives or decreasing the correlation between objectives leads to an exponential increment on the size of PLO-sets, whereas the variable correlation has only a minor effect. Second, we study the running time and the quality reached when using bounding archiving methods to limit the size of the archive handled by PLS, and thus, the maximum size of the PLO-set found. We argue that there is a clear relationship between the running time of PLS and the difficulty of a problem instance. △ Less

Submitted 19 September, 2014; originally announced September 2014.

Comments: appears in Parallel Problem Solving from Nature - PPSN XIII, Ljubljana : Slovenia (2014)