Reinforcement learning to choose optimizers

No single optimization method is uniformly best for all problems, and the most suitable optimizer choice can change during a run. Existing approaches that change optimizer during execution typically predetermine part of the strategy: the portfolio is restricted to one algorithm class, the switch occurs once at a fixed time, or the frequency of decisions is treated as a hyperparameter rather than a learned one. We introduce "Reinforcement Learning to Choose Optimizers", which formulates the optimization algorithm choice as a sequential decision-making problem. At each decision, a recurrent policy reads the current run state and decides both which optimizer should be used next and for how long. The portfolio includes both gradient-based and derivative-free optimizers, and each switch passes on the current best solution and a representative step size. A context proxy conditions a gating network over expert heads, and training employs a decoupled actor-critic whose return is expressed in the same empirical runtime distribution metric used at evaluation. Training tasks and portfolio are designed jointly so that no optimizer dominates. On unseen problems, the learned policy outperforms every portfolio optimizer at all but the smallest budgets, and it remains robust under distribution shift.

Many Optimizers But Only One Training Path: Repeated Resampling for Adaptive Optimizer Selection

An optimizer is usually chosen before training a deep neural network and then kept fixed. Treating optimizer choice as a hyperparameter could boost performance, but it requires several complete training runs and discards all but the winner. Repeated Optimizer Resampling (ROR) instead searches during one evolving run. Every $b$ epochs, each candidate optimizer scouts from the current model weights for $s$ epochs. The best scout continues for the remaining $b-s$ epochs, and that completed segment becomes the new incumbent if it improves the validation objective. This design allows the preferred optimizer to change as training progresses. We compare two variants of ROR on MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, and two motor insurance claim-count models. Nine fixed optimizers and both ROR variants are evaluated with the same ten seeds. One-epoch ROR uses 24\% to 35\% of the aggregate training needed to identify the best fixed optimizer exhaustively and remains close to that optimizer on all four tasks. These results support short scouting as a practical way to search over optimizers without completing every candidate run.