Relaxations of Lexicase Parent Selection

In a genetic programming system, the parent selection algorithm determines which programs in the evolving population will be used as the material out of which new programs will be constructed. The lexicase parent selection algorithm chooses a parent by considering all test cases, individually, one at a time, in a random order, to reduce the pool of possible parent programs. Lexicase selection is ordinarily strict, in that a program can only be selected if it has the best error in the entire population on the first test case considered, and the best error relative to all other programs that remain in the pool each time it is reduced. This strictness may exclude high-quality candidates from consideration for parenthood, and hence from exploration by the evolutionary process. In this chapter we describe and present results of four variants of lexicase selection that relax these strict constraints: epsilon lexicase selection, random threshold lexicase selection, MADCAP epsilon lexicase selection, and truncated lexicase selection. We present the results of experiments with genetic programming systems using these and other parent selection algorithms on symbolic regression and software synthesis problems. We also briefly discuss the relations between lexicase selection and work on many-objective optimization, and the implications of these considerations for future work on parent selection in genetic programming.

[1]  R. Tibshirani Regression Shrinkage and Selection via the Lasso , 1996 .

[2]  Lee Spector,et al.  Lexicase Selection for Program Synthesis: A Diversity Analysis , 2016 .

[3]  Thomas Helmuth,et al.  Lexicase Selection with Weighted Shuffle , 2017, GPTP.

[4]  Jason H. Moore,et al.  A Probabilistic and Multi-Objective Analysis of Lexicase Selection and ε-Lexicase Selection , 2019, Evolutionary Computation.

[5]  Nicholas Freitag McPhee,et al.  Semantic Building Blocks in Genetic Programming , 2008, EuroGP.

[6]  Lee Spector,et al.  Inference of compact nonlinear dynamic models by epigenetic local search , 2016, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell..

[7]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Age-fitness pareto optimization , 2010, GECCO '10.

[8]  Leonardo Trujillo,et al.  A comparison of fitness-case sampling methods for genetic programming , 2017, J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell..

[9]  Nicola Beume,et al.  Pareto-, Aggregation-, and Indicator-Based Methods in Many-Objective Optimization , 2007, EMO.

[10]  Samir W. Mahfoud Niching methods for genetic algorithms , 1996 .

[11]  Krzysztof Krawiec,et al.  Behavioral Program Synthesis: Insights and Prospects , 2016 .

[12]  Lee Spector,et al.  Epsilon-Lexicase Selection for Regression , 2016, GECCO.

[13]  Krzysztof Krawiec,et al.  Comparison of Semantic-aware Selection Methods in Genetic Programming , 2015, GECCO.

[14]  Jason H. Moore,et al.  $ε$-Lexicase selection: a probabilistic and multi-objective analysis of lexicase selection in continuous domains , 2017, ArXiv.

[15]  Jinhua Zheng,et al.  Spread Assessment for Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimization , 2009, EMO.

[16]  Lee Spector,et al.  Effects of Lexicase and Tournament Selection on Diversity Recovery and Maintenance , 2016, GECCO.

[17]  Anne Auger,et al.  Theory of the hypervolume indicator: optimal μ-distributions and the choice of the reference point , 2009, FOGA '09.

[18]  Lee Spector,et al.  General Program Synthesis Benchmark Suite , 2015, GECCO.

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

[20]  Lee Spector,et al.  The Impact of Hyperselection on Lexicase Selection , 2016, GECCO.

[21]  Lee Spector,et al.  Solving Uncompromising Problems With Lexicase Selection , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[22]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Evaluating the -Domination Based Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm for a Quick Computation of Pareto-Optimal Solutions , 2005, Evolutionary Computation.

[23]  Krzysztof Krawiec,et al.  Behavioral programming: a broader and more detailed take on semantic GP , 2014, GECCO.