Evaluating Real-World Generalizability of Algorithm Selection Models

High pass rates on established programming benchmarks such as HumanEval and LiveCodeBench do not always show whether a model can reason about algorithms. Many fixed benchmarks eventually become part of the public training ecosystem through released problem statements, editorials, and generated solutions, allowing later models to improve partly by exposure rather than by stronger algorithmic ability. We introduce ALGOBENCH, a framework that automatically builds novel algorithmic problems from known competitive-programming problems through structured constraint-shifting transformations. Each accepted ALGOBENCH variant is traceable to a source problem, but must make the original reference algorithm fail. Beyond pass@$k$, we introduce complexity-aware metrics -- including OPTT, OPTS, TRAPRATE, GAPT, and CONSENS -- to test whether a solution is not only functionally correct but also asymptotically suitable for the generated problem. Experiments across multiple LLMs and prompting strategies show that performance drops sharply on ALGOBENCH variants, retrieval can increase reuse of the old algorithm, and many correct-looking solutions fail to meet the required complexity. Error analysis shows that failures are mainly algorithmic rather than implementation-level, suggesting that ALGOBENCH evaluates adaptation beyond functional correctness.

Automated algorithm selection in black-box optimization typically relies on supervised models that map landscape features to algorithm performance labels. Such models are costly to train, benchmark-dependent, and often fail to generalize to unseen problem classes. We study an unsupervised alternative: multi-kernel clustering over heterogeneous landscape representations, in which problem instances are grouped without using performance labels in the clustering stage, and the resulting clusters are mapped post hoc to solver recommendations through a strictly separated three-stage evaluation protocol. Drawing on two decades of advances in multiple kernel learning, we adopt a multi-kernel k-means formulation that jointly learns cluster assignments and kernel weights over four heterogeneous landscape views: ELA, DeepELA, DoE2Vec, and TransOptAS. On affine BBOB-derived selector tasks for Differential Evolution (DE) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) at a fixed evaluation budget, we report mean plus or minus standard deviation selector profiles over 50 independent random seeds for stochastic configurations. Multi-kernel clustering obtains the strongest mean profile on the DE portfolio and remains competitive with, and nominally ahead of, the leading baselines on the more compressed PSO portfolio, where differences among the best methods are small relative to stochastic variation. In representative median-seed runs used for visualization, the learned kernel weights retain ELA and TransOptAS while assigning zero weight to DeepELA and DoE2Vec, providing a task-specific interpretation of which representations are retained by the multi-kernel model for selector-oriented grouping.

Benchmarks of machine learning models often include many datasets, making evaluation expensive. For efficiency, it is preferable to perform evaluations on small, representative datasets instead. The selection of such subsets typically relies on heuristics and is rarely analyzed for the robustness of the resulting model rankings. We introduce a framework to perform the task of selecting datasets subsets with an evaluation of how different selection strategies preserve the global model rankings. Our framework includes bootstrap aggregation, which provides valid confidence intervals, allowing a principled comparison of selection strategies. We consider clustering, design criteria (A/D-optimality), random baselines, and greedy farthest-first (FAFI). For the latter, we derive upper bounds on selection quality in terms of ranking errors as a function of the number of selected datasets. Empirically, in time series classification (TSC, 112 datasets) and in a supplementary natural language processing benchmark derived from MTEB (57 tasks), several selection strategies improve rank preservation compared with random subsets, including simple FAFI. In contrast, in recommender systems (30 datasets), the improvement of strategies over random selection is small and typically statistically insignificant. For TSC, our best-performing strategy achieves a Spearman correlation of 0.95 with the full benchmark model rankings using only five selected datasets. Additional experiments indicate that the effectiveness of selection approaches depends on both the quality of dataset representations and the scale of the benchmarking regime.