  We argue that results produced by a heuristic optimisation algorithm cannot
be considered reproducible unless the algorithm fully specifies what should be
done with solutions generated outside the domain, even in the case of simple
box constraints. Currently, in the field of heuristic optimisation, such
specification is rarely mentioned or investigated due to the assumed triviality
or insignificance of this question. Here, we demonstrate that, at least in
algorithms based on Differential Evolution, this choice induces notably
different behaviours - in terms of performance, disruptiveness and population
diversity. This is shown theoretically (where possible) for standard
Differential Evolution in the absence of selection pressure and experimentally
for the standard and state-of-the-art Differential Evolution variants on
special test function $f_0$ and BBOB benchmarking suite, respectively.
Moreover, we demonstrate that the importance of this choice quickly grows with
problem's dimensionality. Different Evolution is not at all special in this
regard - there is no reason to presume that other heuristic optimisers are not
equally affected by the aforementioned algorithmic choice. Thus, we urge the
field of heuristic optimisation to formalise and adopt the idea of a new
algorithmic component in heuristic optimisers, which we call here a strategy of
dealing with infeasible solutions. This component needs to be consistently (a)
specified in algorithmic descriptions to guarantee reproducibility of results,
(b) studied to better understand its impact on algorithm's performance in a
wider sense and (c) included in the (automatic) algorithmic design. All of
these should be done even for problems with box constraints.
