Carola Doerr

In black-box optimization, a central question is which algorithm to use to solve a given, previously unseen, problem. Selecting a single algorithm, however, entails inherent risks: inaccuracies in the selector may lead to poor choices, and even well-performing algorithms with high variance can yield unsatisfactory results in a single run. A natural remedy is to split the evaluation budget across multiple runs of potentially different algorithms. Such sequential algorithm portfolios benefit from variance reduction and complementarities between algorithms, often outperforming approaches that allocate the entire budget to a single solver. While effective portfolios can be constructed post-hoc, transferring this idea to the algorithm selection setting is non-trivial. We show that a naïve portfolio constructed over the full training set already outperforms the strongest traditional baseline, the virtual best solver. We then propose a simple yet effective k-nearest-neighbor-based finetuning approach to construct portfolios tailored to unseen instances, yielding further improvements and highlighting the effectiveness of portfolio selection in fixed-budget black-box optimization.

Online algorithm selection (OAS) aims to adapt the optimization process to changes in the fitness landscape and is expected to outperform any single algorithm from a given portfolio. Although this expectation is supported by numerous empirical studies, there are currently no theoretical results proving that OAS can yield asymptotic speedups (apart from artificial examples for hyper-heuristics). Moreover, theory-based guidelines for when and how to switch between algorithms are largely missing. In this paper, we present the first theoretical example in which switching between two algorithms—the (1 + λ) EA and the (1 + (λ, λ)) GA—solves the OneMax problem asymptotically faster than either algorithm used in isolation. We show that an appropriate choice of population sizes allows the optimum to be reached in O(n log log n) expected time, faster than the [EQUATION] runtime of the better of the two algorithms with optimally tuned parameters. We first establish this bound under an idealized switching rule that changes from the (1 + λ) to the (1 + (λ, λ)) GA at the optimal time. We then propose a realistic switching strategy that achieves the same performance. Our analysis combines fixed-start and fixed-target perspectives, illustrating how different algorithms dominate at different stages of optimization. This approach offers a promising path toward a deeper theoretical understanding of OAS.

In real-world applications, users often favor structurally diverse design choices over one high-quality solution. It is therefore important to consider more solutions that decision makers can compare and further explore based on additional criteria. Alongside the existing approaches of evolutionary diversity optimization, quality diversity, and multimodal optimization, this paper presents a fresh perspective on this challenge by considering the problem of identifying a fixed number of solutions with a pairwise distance above a specified threshold while maximizing their average quality. We obtain first insight into these objectives by performing a subset selection on the search trajectories of different well-established search heuristics, whether they have been specifically designed with diversity in mind or not. We emphasize that the main goal of our work is not to present a new algorithm but to understand the capability of off-the-shelf algorithms to quantify the trade-off between the minimum pairwise distance within batches of solutions and their average quality. We also analyze how this trade-off depends on the properties of the underlying optimization problem. A possibly surprising outcome of our empirical study is the observation that naive uniform random sampling establishes a very strong baseline for our problem, hardly ever outperformed by the search trajectories of the considered heuristics. We interpret these results as a motivation to develop algorithms tailored to produce diverse solutions of high average quality.

The representation of optimization problems and algorithms in terms of numerical features is a well-established tool for comparing optimization problem instances, for analyzing the behavior of optimization algorithms, and the quality of existing problem benchmarks, as well as for automated per-instance algorithm selection and configuration approaches. Extending purely problem-centered feature collections, our recently proposed DynamoRep features provide a simple and inexpensive representation of the algorithm-problem interaction during the optimization process. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of the predictive power of the DynamoRep features for the problem classification, algorithm selection, and algorithm classification tasks. In particular, the features are evaluated for the classification of problem instances into problem classes from the BBOB (Black Box Optimization Benchmarking) suite, selecting the best algorithm to solve a given problem from a portfolio of three algorithms (Differential Evolution, Evolutionary Strategy, and Particle Swarm Optimization), as well as distinguishing these algorithms based on their trajectories. We show that, despite being much cheaper to compute, they can yield results comparable to those using state-of-the-art Exploratory Landscape Analysis features.

In typical black-box optimization applications, the available computational budget is often allocated to a single algorithm, typically chosen based on user preference with limited knowledge about the problem at hand or according to some expert knowledge. However, we show that splitting the budget across several algorithms yield significantly better results. This approach benefits from both algorithm complementarity across diverse problems and variance reduction within individual functions, and shows that algorithm portfolios do NOT require parallel evaluation capabilities. To demonstrate the advantage of sequential algorithm portfolios, we apply it to the COCO data archive, using over 200 algorithms evaluated on the BBOB test suite. The proposed sequential portfolios consistently outperform single-algorithm baselines, achieving relative performance gains of over 14%, and offering new insights into restart mechanisms and potential for warm-started execution strategies.

Modular algorithm frameworks not only allow for combinations never tested in manually selected algorithm portfolios, but they also provide a structured approach to assess which algorithmic ideas are crucial for the observed performance of algorithms. In this paper, we propose a methodology for analyzing the impact of the different modules on the overall performance. We consider modular frameworks for two widely used families of derivative-free, black-box optimization algorithms, the covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy (CMA-ES) and differential evolution (DE). More specifically, we use performance data of 324 modCMA-ES and 576 modDE algorithm variants (with each variant corresponding to a specific configuration of modules) obtained on the 24 BBOB problems for six different runtime budgets in two dimensions. Our analysis of these data reveals that the impact of individual modules on overall algorithm performance varies significantly. Notably, among the examined modules, the elitism module in CMA-ES and the linear population size reduction module in DE exhibit the most significant impact on performance. Furthermore, our exploratory data analysis of problem landscape data suggests that the most relevant landscape features remain consistent regardless of the configuration of individual modules, but the influence that these features have on regression accuracy varies. In addition, we apply classifiers that exploit feature importance with respect to the trained models for performance prediction and performance data, to predict the modular configurations of CMA-ES and DE algorithm variants. The results show that the predicted configurations do not exhibit a statistically significant difference in performance compared to the true configurations, with the percentage varying depending on the setup (from 49.1% to 95.5% for modCMA and 21.7% to 77.1% for DE).