A Flexible and Generic Approach for Explainable Landscape Analysis and the pyXla Toolbox

Explainability in Many-Objective Optimization (MaO) is currently hindered by the escalating complexity of the Pareto front, which renders the relationship between high-dimensional decision variables and objective outcomes increasingly opaque. As the number of objectives exceeds the limits of traditional visualization, decision-makers encounter a cognitive drought'' in identifying relevant trade-offs or specifying target regions without a priori knowledge. To bridge this interpretability gap, we introduce the {Partition-Guided Distance Saliency (PGDS)} framework, a novel XAI approach designed for continuous optimization landscapes. Our framework automates the explanation process through a three-stage pipeline that prioritizes geometric intuition over abstract rules. First, we employ a surrogate model that learns how geometric distances in the decision space map to proximity in the objective space. Second, to address the difficulty of manual target selection in high dimensions, the framework automatically partitions the objective landscape into distinct regions and identifies local Dominating Points'' to serve as automated targets for improvement. Third, we quantify how sensitive a solution's position is to each decision variable by measuring the distance shifts induced by perturbations to each variable. This allows PGDS to categorize features as either Drivers'' which facilitate convergence toward preferred regions, or Blockers'' which represent geometric constraints hindering further progress. Validation on 10-objective benchmarks and a physics-informed engineering problem (Welded Beam) demonstrates that PGDS provides differentiated, actionable insights that traditional visualization and rule-based XAI methods fail to provide.

Classical space-filling designs often fail to provide reliable statistical results for Exploratory Landscape Analysis (ELA) when only limited evaluation budgets are available, as commonly occurs in high-dimensional problems or other resource-constrained settings, resulting in noisy and unstable landscape descriptors. To address this challenge, we propose an alternative sampling strategy for ELA based on random linear embeddings. Rather than sampling uniformly in the full decision space, we allocate the budget to randomly oriented low-dimensional subspaces and investigate whether this improves the robustness of the resulting landscape descriptors. We compare full-space and embedding-based sampling strategies across several classical ELA feature sets on the noiseless Black-Box Optimization Benchmarking (BBOB) test suite from the COmparing Continuous Optimizers (COCO) environment, in a 20-dimensional setting. Our results suggest that random linear embeddings constitute a promising alternative for budget-constrained ELA, although their effectiveness remains dependent on the feature class and the underlying problem.

Landscape feature representations play a central role in automated algorithm selection and meta-learning for black-box optimization, yet little is known about how different representations agree (or disagree) in the structures they impose on problem spaces. This paper presents a systematic unsupervised evaluation of four state-of-the-art representations (ELA, DeepELA, TransOptAS, and DoE2Vec) using a diverse set of affine combinations of BBOB functions (MA-BBOB). By applying extensive clustering analyses, coverage-based stability measures, and cross-representation similarity assessments, we show that each representation organizes the same problems in markedly different ways: ELA and TransOptAS form compact geometric structures, DeepELA provides a balanced intermediate view, and DoE2Vec achieves strong semantic alignment but with substantial fragmentation. Our results reveal that no single representation dominates; rather, they capture complementary aspects of the underlying landscapes. These findings highlight the importance of multi-view analyses for understanding representation behavior and offer guidance on selecting or combining representations in downstream meta-learning and algorithm selection tasks. In addition, across two different algorithm families (Differential Evolution and Particle Swarm Optimization), we show that landscape representations face an inherent trade-off in how well they align structural landscape descriptions with observed performance, indicating that no single representation can fully capture algorithm performance.