In the field of evolutionary computation, one of the most challenging topics is algorithm selection. Knowing which heuristics to use for which optimization problem is key to obtaining high-quality solutions. We aim to extend this research topic by taking a first step towards a selection method for adaptive CMA-ES algorithms. We build upon the theoretical work done by van Rijn et al. [PPSN'18], in which the potential of switching between different CMA-ES variants was quantified in the context of a modular CMA-ES framework.We demonstrate in this work that their proposed approach is not very reliable, in that implementing the suggested adaptive configurations does not yield the predicted performance gains. We propose a revised approach, which results in a more robust fit between predicted and actual performance. The adaptive CMA-ES approach obtains performance gains on 18 out of 24 tested functions of the BBOB benchmark, with stable advantages of up to 23%. An analysis of module activation indicates which modules are most crucial for the different phases of optimizing each of the 24 benchmark problems. The module activation also suggests that additional gains are possible when including the (B)IPOP modules, which we have excluded for this present work.The adaptive CMA-ES configurations we use were implemented in the modular CMA-ES framework introduced in [vRWvLB16], which is freely available at [vR18].This framework implements 11 different modules. Of these 11 modules, 9 are binary and 2 are ternary, allowing for a combined total of 4,608 different configurations. The full list of available modules is shown in Table 1.

Abstract-Various variants of the well known Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES) have been proposed recently, which improve the empirical performance of the original algorithm by structural modifications. However, in practice it is often unclear which variation is best suited to the specific optimization problem at hand. As one approach to tackle this issue, algorithmic mechanisms attached to CMA-ES variants are considered and extracted as functional modules, allowing for combinations of them. This leads to a configuration space over ES structures, which enables the exploration of algorithm structures and paves the way toward novel algorithm generation. Specifically, eleven modules are incorporated in this framework with two or three alternative configurations for each module, resulting in 4 608 algorithms. A self-adaptive Genetic Algorithm (GA) is used to efficiently evolve effective ES-structures for given classes of optimization problems, outperforming any classical CMA-ES variants from literature. The proposed approach is evaluated on noiseless functions from BBOB suite. Furthermore, such an observation is again confirmed on different function groups and dimensionality, indicating the feasibility of ES configuration on real-world problem classes.

Theoretical and empirical research on evolutionary computation methods complement each other by providing two fundamentally different approaches towards a better understanding of black-box optimization heuristics. In discrete optimization, both streams developed rather independently of each other, but we observe today an increasing interest in reconciling these two sub-branches. In continuous optimization, the COCO (COmparing Continuous Optimisers) benchmarking suite has established itself as an important platform that theoreticians and practitioners use to exchange research ideas and questions. No widely accepted equivalent exists in the research domain of discrete black-box optimization.Marking an important step towards filling this gap, we adjust the COCO software to pseudo-Boolean optimization problems, and obtain from this a benchmarking environment that allows a fine-grained empirical analysis of discrete black-box heuristics. In this documentation we demonstrate how this test bed can be used to profile the performance of evolutionary algorithms. More concretely, we study the optimization behavior of several (1 + λ) EA variants on the two benchmark problems OneMax and LeadingOnes. This comparison motivates a refined analysis for the optimization time of the (1 + λ) EA on LeadingOnes.

No abstract

No abstract