Lightweight Symbolic Regression with the Interaction - Transformation Representation

Symbolic Regression techniques stand out from other regression analysis tools because of the possibility of generating powerful but yet simple expressions. These simple expressions may be useful in many practical situations in which the practitioner wants to interpret the obtained results, finetune the model, or understand the generating phenomena. Despite this possibility, the current state-of-the-art algorithms for Symbolic Regression usually require a high computational budget while having little guarantees regarding the simplicity of the returned expressions. Recently, a new Data Structure representation for mathematical expressions, called Interaction-Transformation (IT), was introduced together with a search-based algorithm named SymTree that surpassed a subset of the recent Symbolic Regression algorithms and even some state-of-the-art nonlinear regression algorithms, while returning simple expressions as a result. This paper introduces a lightweight tool based on this algorithm, named Lab Assistant. This tool runs on the client-side of any compatible Internet browser with JavaScript. Alongside this tool, two algorithms using the IT representation are introduced. Some experiments are performed in order to show the potential of the Lab Assistant to help practitioners, professors, researchers and students willing to experiment with Symbolic Regression. The results showed that this tool is competent to find the correct expression for many well known Physics and Engineering relations within a reasonable average time frame of a few seconds. This tool opens up lots of possibilities in Symbolic Regression research for low-cost devices to be used in applications where a high-end computer is not available.

[1]  Chris J. Hinde,et al.  Multi Objective Symbolic Regression , 2016, UKCI.

[2]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Distilling Free-Form Natural Laws from Experimental Data , 2009, Science.

[3]  George A. F. Seber,et al.  Linear regression analysis , 1977 .

[4]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms, Tournament Selection, and the Effects of Noise , 1995, Complex Syst..

[5]  Fabrício Olivetti de França,et al.  On the diversity mechanisms of opt-aiNet: A comparative study with fitness sharing , 2010, IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[6]  Bruno Sareni,et al.  Fitness sharing and niching methods revisited , 1998, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[7]  Luis Muñoz,et al.  neat Genetic Programming: Controlling bloat naturally , 2016, Inf. Sci..

[8]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Generalized best-first search strategies and the optimality of A* , 1985, JACM.

[9]  David Ruppert,et al.  Fitting a Bivariate Additive Model by Local Polynomial Regression , 1997 .

[10]  L. Billard,et al.  Symbolic Regression Analysis , 2002 .

[11]  George Cybenko,et al.  Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function , 1992, Math. Control. Signals Syst..

[12]  Kurt Hornik,et al.  Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks , 1991, Neural Networks.

[13]  Fabrício Olivetti de França,et al.  A greedy search tree heuristic for symbolic regression , 2018, Inf. Sci..

[14]  John R. Koza,et al.  Genetic programming - on the programming of computers by means of natural selection , 1993, Complex adaptive systems.

[15]  Kalyan Veeramachaneni,et al.  Building Predictive Models via Feature Synthesis , 2015, GECCO.

[16]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Evolutionary algorithms in theory and practice - evolution strategies, evolutionary programming, genetic algorithms , 1996 .

[17]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  A Survey of Evolution Strategies , 1991, ICGA.