mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

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

arXiv 2310.10685 ↗First posted 14 Oct 2023cs.LG cs.AI cs.NEcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Oct 2023.

Builds on

15 of 31 references.

References · 15

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  2. 2018Automated Algorithm Selection: Survey and Perspectivescited by 111
  3. 2017Automated Algorithm Selection on Continuous Black-Box Problems By Combining Exploratory Landscape Analysis and Machine Learningcited by 33
  4. 2020Exploratory Landscape Analysis is Strongly Sensitive to the Sampling Strategycited by 27
  5. 2020IOHanalyzer: Detailed Performance Analyses for Iterative Optimization Heuristicscited by 20
  6. 2021Tuning as a Means of Assessing the Benefits of New Ideas in Interplay with Existing Algorithmic Modulescited by 20
  7. 2022Per-run Algorithm Selection with Warm-starting using Trajectory-based Featurescited by 20
  8. 2020Black-Box Optimization Revisited: Improving Algorithm Selection Wizards through Massive Benchmarkingcited by 14
  9. 2021The Impact of Hyper-Parameter Tuning for Landscape-Aware Performance Regression and Algorithm Selectioncited by 11
  10. 2022SELECTOR: Selecting a Representative Benchmark Suite for Reproducible Statistical Comparisoncited by 11
  11. 2023Modular Differential Evolutioncited by 11
  12. 2021OPTION: OPTImization Algorithm Benchmarking ONtologycited by 9
3 more
  1. 2020A Modular Hybridization of Particle Swarm Optimization and Differential Evolutioncited by 5
  2. 2022The Importance of Landscape Features for Performance Prediction of Modular CMA-ES Variantscited by 5
  3. 2023Using Knowledge Graphs for Performance Prediction of Modular Optimization Algorithmscited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 3.

5 papers.