Abstract
Advanced optimization algorithms with a variety of configurable parameters become increasingly difficult to apply effectively to solving optimization problems. Appropriate algorithm configuration becomes highly relevant, still remaining a computationally expensive operation. Development of machine learning methods allows to model and predict the efficiency of different solving strategies and algorithm configurations depending on properties of optimization problem to be solved. The paper suggests the Dependency Decomposition approach to reduce computational complexity of modeling the efficiency of optimization algorithm, also considering the amount of computational resources available for optimization problem solving. The approach requires development of explicit Exploratory Landscape Analysis methods to assess a variety of significant characteristic features of optimization problems. The results of feature assessment depend on the number of sample points analyzed and their location in the design space, on top of that some of methods require additional evaluations of objective function. The paper proposes new landscape analysis methods based on given points without the need of any additional objective function evaluations. An algorithm of building a so-called Full Variability Map is suggested based on informativeness criteria formulated for groups of sample points. The paper suggests Generalized Information Content method for analysis of Full Variability Map which allows to get accurate and stable estimations of objective function features. The Sectorization method of Variability Map analysis is proposed to assess characteristic features reflecting such properties of objective function that are critical for optimization algorithm efficiency. The resulting features are invariant to the scale of objective function gradients which positively affects the generalizing ability of problems classification algorithm. The procedure of the comparative study of effectiveness of landscape analysis algorithms is introduced. The results of computational experiments indicate reliability of applying the suggested landscape analysis methods to optimization problem characterization and classification.
References
[1] Belkhir N. et al., Feature based algorithm configuration: A case study with differential evolution, International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, Springer, Cham, 2016, 156-16610.1007/978-3-319-45823-6_15Search in Google Scholar
[2] Eggensperger K., Lindauer M., Hutter F., Pitfalls and best practices in algorithm configuration, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2019, 64, 861-89310.1613/jair.1.11420Search in Google Scholar
[3] Shan S., Wang G. G., Survey of modeling and optimization strategies to solve high-dimensional design problems with computationally-expensive black-box functions, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2010, 41(2), 219–24110.1007/s00158-009-0420-2Search in Google Scholar
[4] Kerschke P., Trautmann H., Comprehensive feature-based landscape analysis of continuous and constrained optimization problems using the R-package flacco, Applications in Statistical Computing, Springer, Cham, 2019, 93-12310.1007/978-3-030-25147-5_7Search in Google Scholar
[5] Cavazzuti M., Design of experiments, Optimization Methods, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013, 13–4210.1007/978-3-642-31187-1_2Search in Google Scholar
[6] Li G., Aute V., Azarm S., An accumulative error based adaptive design of experiments for offline metamodeling, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2010, 40(1), 137–15510.1007/s00158-009-0395-zSearch in Google Scholar
[7] Forrester A. I. J., Keane A. J., Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2009, 45(1-3), 50–7910.1016/j.paerosci.2008.11.001Search in Google Scholar
[8] Chatterjee A., Siarry P., Nonlinear inertia weight variation for dynamic adaptation in particle swarm optimization, Computers & operations research, 2006, 33(3), 859-87110.1016/j.cor.2004.08.012Search in Google Scholar
[9] Agasiev T. A., Generalized Information Content based on Variability Map for Exploratory Landscape Analysis of Global Optimization Problems, Procedia Computer Science, 2019, 150, 53-6010.1016/j.procs.2019.02.012Search in Google Scholar
[10] Beiranvand V., Hare W., Lucet Y., Best practices for comparing optimization algorithms, Optimization and Engineering, 2017, 18(4), 815-84810.1007/s11081-017-9366-1Search in Google Scholar
[11] Kerschke P., Trautmann H., Automated algorithm selection on continuous black-box problems by combining exploratory landscape analysis and machine learning, Evolutionary computation, 2019, 27(1), 99-12710.1162/evco_a_00236Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[12] Karpenko A. P., Svianadze Z. O., Meta-optimization based on self-organizing map and genetic algorithm, Optical Memory and Neural Networks, 2011, 20(4), 279-28310.3103/S1060992X11040059Search in Google Scholar
[13] Branke J., Elomari J. A., Meta-optimization for parameter tuning with a flexible computing budget, Proceedings of the 14th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, ACM, 2012, 1245-125210.1145/2330163.2330336Search in Google Scholar
[14] Kerschke P. et al., Automated algorithm selection: Survey and perspectives, Evolutionary computation, 2019, 27(1), 3-4510.1162/evco_a_00242Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[15] Momin J., Yang X. S., A literature survey of benchmark functions for global optimization problems, Journal of Mathematical Modeling and Numerical optimization, 2013, 4(2), 150–19410.1504/IJMMNO.2013.055204Search in Google Scholar
[16] Mersmann O. et al., Exploratory landscape analysis, Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM, 2011, 829–83610.1145/2001576.2001690Search in Google Scholar
[17] Beham A. et al., Integrating Exploratory Landscape Analysis into Metaheuristic Algorithms, International Conference on Computer Aided Systems Theory, Springer, Cham, 2017, 473-48010.1007/978-3-319-74718-7_57Search in Google Scholar
[18] Kerschke P. et al., Cell mapping techniques for exploratory landscape analysis, EVOLVE-A Bridge between Probability, Set Oriented Numerics, and Evolutionary Computation V, Springer, Cham, 2014, 115–13110.1007/978-3-319-07494-8_9Search in Google Scholar
[19] Flamm C. et al., Barrier trees of degenerate landscapes, Zeitschrift für physikalische chemie, 2002, 216(2), 15510.1524/zpch.2002.216.2.155Search in Google Scholar
[20] Kerschke P. et al., Detecting funnel structures by means of exploratory landscape analysis, Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, ACM, 2015, 265–27210.1145/2739480.2754642Search in Google Scholar
[21] Muñoz M. A., Kirley M., Halgamuge S. K., Exploratory landscape analysis of continuous space optimization problems using information content, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 2015, 19(1), 74–8710.1109/TEVC.2014.2302006Search in Google Scholar
[22] Saini B. S., Lopez-Ibanez M., Miettinen K., Automatic Surrogate Modelling Technique Selection based on Features of Optimization Problems, 201910.1145/3319619.3326890Search in Google Scholar
[23] Guerra, Luis, et al., A comparison of clustering quality indices using outliers and noise, Intelligent Data Analysis, 2012, 16(4), 703-71510.3233/IDA-2012-0545Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Taleh Agasiev, published by De Gruyter
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.