An Exploration of Exploration: Measuring the ability of lexicase selection to find obscure pathways to optimality

Parent selection algorithms (selection schemes) steer populations through a problem’s search space, often trading off between exploitation and exploration. Understanding how selection schemes affect exploitation and exploration within a search space is crucial to tackling increasingly challenging problems. Here, we introduce an “exploration diagnostic” that diagnoses a selection scheme’s capacity for search space exploration. We use our exploration diagnostic to investigate the exploratory capacity of lexicase selection and several of its variants: epsilon lexicase, down-sampled lexicase, cohort lexicase, and novelty-lexicase. We verify that lexicase selection out-explores tournament selection, and we show that lexicase selection’s exploratory capacity can be sensitive the ratio between population size and the number of test cases used for evaluating candidate solutions. Additionally, we find that relaxing lexicase’s elitism with epsilon lexicase can further improve exploration. Both down-sampling and cohort lexicase—two techniques for applying random subsampling to test cases—degrade lexicase’s exploratory capacity; however, we find that cohort partitioning better preserves lexicase’s exploratory capacity than down-sampling. Finally, we find evidence that novelty-lexicase’s addition of novelty test cases can degrade lexicase’s capacity for exploration. Overall, our findings provide hypotheses for further exploration and actionable insights and recommendations for using lexicase selection. Additionally, this work demonstrates the value of selection scheme diagnostics as a complement to more conventional benchmarking approaches to selection scheme analysis. Jose Guadalupe Hernandez Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA e-mail: herna383@msu.edu Alexander Lalejini Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA e-mail: amlalejini@gmail.com Charles Ofria Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA e-mail: ofria@msu.edu 1 ar X iv :2 10 7. 09 76 0v 1 [ cs .N E ] 2 0 Ju l 2 02 1 2 Hernandez, Lalejini, and Ofria

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

[2]  Yihui Xie,et al.  A General-Purpose Package for Dynamic Report Generation in R , 2016 .

[3]  Charles Ofria,et al.  Ecological theory provides insights about evolutionary computation , 2018, GECCO.

[4]  Lee Spector,et al.  Explaining and Exploiting the Advantages of Down-sampled Lexicase Selection , 2020, ALIFE.

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

[6]  Lee Spector,et al.  Lexicase Selection Beyond Genetic Programming , 2018, GPTP.

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

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

[9]  Lee Spector,et al.  On the importance of specialists for lexicase selection , 2020, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

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

[11]  John N. Hooker,et al.  Testing heuristics: We have it all wrong , 1995, J. Heuristics.

[12]  A. E. Eiben,et al.  On Evolutionary Exploration and Exploitation , 1998, Fundam. Informaticae.

[13]  Yihui Xie,et al.  bookdown: Authoring Books and Technical Documents with R Markdown , 2016 .

[14]  Thomas Helmuth,et al.  PSB2: the second program synthesis benchmark suite , 2021, GECCO.

[15]  Lee Spector,et al.  Problem-Solving Benefits of Down-Sampled Lexicase Selection , 2021, Artificial Life.

[16]  Jason H. Moore,et al.  Where are we now?: a large benchmark study of recent symbolic regression methods , 2018, GECCO.

[17]  Thomas Helmuth,et al.  Comparing and combining lexicase selection and novelty search , 2019, GECCO.

[18]  Thomas Helmuth,et al.  Benchmarking parent selection for program synthesis by genetic programming , 2020, GECCO Companion.

[19]  Charles Ofria,et al.  Characterizing the Effects of Random Subsampling on Lexicase Selection , 2019, GPTP.

[20]  Lee Spector,et al.  Relaxations of Lexicase Parent Selection , 2017, GPTP.

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

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

[23]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Abandoning Objectives: Evolution Through the Search for Novelty Alone , 2011, Evolutionary Computation.

[24]  Jared M. Moore,et al.  Lexicase selection outperforms previous strategies for incremental evolution of virtual creature controllers , 2017, ECAL.

[25]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[26]  Lee Spector,et al.  Lexicase selection in learning classifier systems , 2019, GECCO.

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

[28]  Charles Ofria,et al.  Interpreting the Tape of Life: Ancestry-Based Analyses Provide Insights and Intuition about Evolutionary Dynamics , 2020, Artificial Life.

[29]  Charles Ofria,et al.  Random subsampling improves performance in lexicase selection , 2019, GECCO.

[30]  C. Wilke Streamlined Plot Theme and Plot Annotations for 'ggplot2' , 2015 .

[31]  Philip K. McKinley,et al.  A Comparison of Multiobjective Algorithms in Evolving Quadrupedal Gaits , 2016, SAB.