A comparison of fitness-case sampling methods for symbolic regression with genetic programming

The canonical approach towards fitness evaluation in Genetic Programming (GP) is to use a static training set to determine fitness, based on a cost function averaged over all fitness-cases. However, motivated by different goals, researchers have recently proposed several techniques that focus selective pressure on a subset of fitness-cases at each generation. These approaches can be described as fitness-case sampling techniques, where the training set is sampled, in some way, to determine fitness. This paper shows a comprehensive evaluation of some of the most recent sampling methods, using benchmark and real-world problems for symbolic regression. The algorithms considered here are Interleaved Sampling, Random Interleaved Sampling, Lexicase Selection and a new sampling technique is proposed called Keep-Worst Interleaved Sampling (KW-IS). The algorithms are extensively evaluated based on test performance, overfitting and bloat. Results suggest that sampling techniques can improve performance compared with standard GP. While on synthetic benchmarks the difference is slight or none at all, on real-world problems the differences are substantial. Some of the best results were achieved by Lexicase Selection and Keep Worse-Interleaved Sampling. Results also show that on real-world problems overfitting correlates strongly with bloating. Furthermore, the sampling techniques provide efficiency, since they reduce the number of fitness-case evaluations required over an entire run.

[1]  Peter Ross,et al.  Dynamic Training Subset Selection for Supervised Learning in Genetic Programming , 1994, PPSN.

[2]  Terence Soule,et al.  Genetic Programming Theory and Practice IV , 2007 .

[3]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Coevolving Fitness Models for Accelerating Evolution and Reducing Evaluations , 2007 .

[4]  Leonardo Vanneschi,et al.  Limiting the Number of Fitness Cases in Genetic Programming Using Statistics , 2002, PPSN.

[5]  Reinhard Männer,et al.  Parallel Problem Solving from Nature — PPSN III , 1994, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[6]  Lee Spector,et al.  A behavior-based analysis of modal problems , 2013, GECCO.

[7]  Wolfgang Banzhaf,et al.  Dynamic Subset Selection Based on a Fitness Case Topology , 2004, Evolutionary Computation.

[8]  Leonardo Vanneschi,et al.  Measuring bloat, overfitting and functional complexity in genetic programming , 2010, GECCO '10.

[9]  Juan Julián Merelo Guervós,et al.  Parallel Problem Solving from Nature — PPSN VII , 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[10]  Lee Spector,et al.  Assessment of problem modality by differential performance of lexicase selection in genetic programming: a preliminary report , 2012, GECCO '12.

[11]  Leonardo Vanneschi,et al.  Genetic programming needs better benchmarks , 2012, GECCO '12.

[12]  Malcolm I. Heywood,et al.  GP Classification under Imbalanced Data sets: Active Sub-sampling and AUC Approximation , 2008, EuroGP.

[13]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Exploiting Open-Endedness to Solve Problems Through the Search for Novelty , 2008, ALIFE.

[14]  Julian F. Miller,et al.  Genetic and Evolutionary Computation — GECCO 2003 , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[15]  Ivo Gonçalves,et al.  Balancing Learning and Overfitting in Genetic Programming with Interleaved Sampling of Training Data , 2013, EuroGP.

[16]  Michael O'Neill,et al.  Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines Manuscript No. Semantically-based Crossover in Genetic Programming: Application to Real-valued Symbolic Regression , 2022 .

[17]  Leonardo Trujillo,et al.  Searching for novel regression functions , 2013, 2013 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[18]  Sara Silva,et al.  GPLAB A Genetic Programming Toolbox for MATLAB , 2004 .

[19]  Robin Harper,et al.  Spatial co-evolution: quicker, fitter and less bloated , 2012, GECCO '12.

[20]  Lee Spector,et al.  Genetic Programming with Historically Assessed Hardness , 2009 .