mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Quantifying the Impact of Modules and Their Interactions in the PSO-X Framework

arXiv 2601.04100 ↗First posted 7 Jan 2026cs.NE cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The PSO-X framework incorporates dozens of modules that have been proposed for solving single-objective continuous optimization problems using particle swarm optimization. While modular frameworks enable users to automatically generate and configure algorithms tailored to specific optimization problems, the complexity of this process increases with the number of modules in the framework and the degrees of freedom defined for their interaction. Understanding how modules affect the performance of algorithms for different problems is critical to making the process of finding effective implementations more efficient and identifying promising areas for further investigation. Despite their practical applications and scientific relevance, there is a lack of empirical studies investigating which modules matter most in modular optimization frameworks and how they interact. In this paper, we analyze the performance of 1424 particle swarm optimization algorithms instantiated from the PSO-X framework on the 25 functions in the CEC'05 benchmark suite with 10 and 30 dimensions. We use functional ANOVA to quantify the impact of modules and their combinations on performance in different problem classes. In practice, this allows us to identify which modules have greater influence on PSO-X performance depending on problem features such as multimodality, mathematical transformations and varying dimensionality. We then perform a cluster analysis to identify groups of problem classes that share similar module effect patterns. Our results show low variability in the importance of modules in all problem classes, suggesting that particle swarm optimization performance is driven by a few influential modules.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Jan 2026.

Builds on

11 of 42 references.

References · 11

  1. 2014ParamILS: An Automatic Algorithm Configuration Frameworkcited by 89
  2. 2017Hyperparameter Importance Across Datasetscited by 63
  3. 2020Benchmarking in Optimization: Best Practice and Open Issuescited by 38
  4. 2018IOHprofiler: A Benchmarking and Profiling Tool for Iterative Optimization Heuristicscited by 28
  5. 2021Tuning as a Means of Assessing the Benefits of New Ideas in Interplay with Existing Algorithmic Modulescited by 20
  6. 2023Modular Differential Evolutioncited by 11
  7. 2024Explainable Benchmarking for Iterative Optimization Heuristicscited by 10
  8. 2022The Importance of Landscape Features for Performance Prediction of Modular CMA-ES Variantscited by 5
  9. 2024Quantifying Individual and Joint Module Impact in Modular Optimization Frameworkscited by 3
  10. 2025METAFOR: A Hybrid Metaheuristics Software Framework for Single-Objective Continuous Optimization Problemscited by 1
  11. 2025Geometric Learning in Black-Box Optimization: A GNN Framework for Algorithm Performance Predictioncited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.