Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Working Paper (2)
- Article (1)
Language
- English (3) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Keywords
- Benchmarking (3) (remove)
Benchmark experiments are required to test, compare, tune, and understand optimization algorithms. Ideally, benchmark problems closely reflect real-world problem behavior. Yet, real-world problems are not always readily available for benchmarking. For example, evaluation costs may be too high, or resources are unavailable (e.g., software or equipment). As a solution, data from previous evaluations can be used to train surrogate models which are then used for benchmarking. The goal is to generate test functions on which the performance of an algorithm is similar to that on the real-world objective function. However, predictions from data-driven models tend to be smoother than the ground-truth from which the training data is derived. This is especially problematic when the training data becomes sparse. The resulting benchmarks may not reflect the landscape features of the ground-truth, are too easy, and may lead to biased conclusions.
To resolve this, we use simulation of Gaussian processes instead of estimation (or prediction). This retains the covariance properties estimated during model training. While previous research suggested a decomposition-based approach for a small-scale, discrete problem, we show that the spectral simulation method enables simulation for continuous optimization problems. In a set of experiments with an artificial ground-truth, we demonstrate that this yields more accurate benchmarks than simply predicting with the Gaussian process model.
An important class of black-box optimization problems relies on using simulations to assess the quality of a given candidate solution. Solving such problems can be computationally expensive because each simulation is very time-consuming. We present an approach to mitigate this problem by distinguishing two factors of computational cost: the number of trials and the time needed to execute the trials. Our approach tries to keep down the number of trials by using Bayesian optimization (BO) –known to be sample efficient– and reducing wall-clock times by parallel execution of trials. We compare the performance of four parallelization methods and two model-free alternatives. Each method is evaluated on all 24 objective functions of the Black-Box-Optimization- Benchmarking (BBOB) test suite in their five, ten, and 20-dimensional versions. Additionally, their performance is investigated on six test cases in robot learning. The results show that parallelized BO outperforms the state-of-the-art CMA-ES on the BBOB test functions, especially for higher dimensions. On the robot learning tasks, the differences are less clear, but the data do support parallelized BO as the ‘best guess’, winning on some cases and never losing.
Many black-box optimization problems rely on simulations to evaluate the quality of candidate solutions. These evaluations can be computationally expensive and very time-consuming. We present and approach to mitigate this problem by taking into consideration two factors: The number of evaluations and the execution time. We aim to keep the number of evaluations low by using Bayesian optimization (BO) – known to be sample efficient– and to reduce wall-clock times by executing parallel evaluations. Four parallelization methods using BO as optimizer are compared against the inherently parallel CMA-ES. Each method is evaluated on all the 24 objective functions of the Black-Box-Optimization-Benchmarking test suite in their 20-dimensional versions. The results show that parallelized BO outperforms the state-of-the-art CMA-ES on most of the test functions, also on higher dimensions.