REVIEW 2 cited by
Explainable Benchmarking for Iterative Optimization Heuristics
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Benchmarking heuristic algorithms is vital to understand under which conditions and on what kind of problems certain algorithms perform well. In most current research into heuristic optimization algorithms, only a very limited number of scenarios, algorithm configurations and hyper-parameter settings are explored, leading to incomplete and often biased insights and results. This paper presents a novel approach we call explainable benchmarking. Introducing the IOH-Xplainer software framework, for analyzing and understanding the performance of various optimization algorithms and the impact of their different components and hyper-parameters. We showcase the framework in the context of two modular optimization frameworks. Through this framework, we examine the impact of different algorithmic components and configurations, offering insights into their performance across diverse scenarios. We provide a systematic method for evaluating and interpreting the behaviour and efficiency of iterative optimization heuristics in a more transparent and comprehensible manner, allowing for better benchmarking and algorithm design.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Behaviour Space Analysis of LLM-driven Meta-heuristic Discovery
Comparing six LLaMEA prompt and selection variants on 5D BBOB problems, the 1+1 elitist variant using both simplify and random-perturbation prompts produced the best anytime performance, and behaviour metrics link thi...
-
Tracing the Interactions of Modular CMA-ES Configurations Across Problem Landscapes
Six modular CMA-ES variants produce nearly identical algorithm footprints on 24 BBOB problems; the worst variant's distinct behavior is traced to ill-conditioning features such as eps.max and lin_simple.coef.max.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.