Less is More: A Call to Focus on Simpler Models in Genetic Programming for Interpretable Machine Learning

Interpretability can be critical for the safe and responsible use of machine learning models in high-stakes applications. So far, evolutionary computation (EC), in particular in the form of genetic programming (GP), represents a key enabler for the discovery of interpretable machine learning (IML) models. In this short paper, we argue that research in GP for IML needs to focus on searching in the space of low-complexity models, by investigating new kinds of search strategies and recombination methods. Moreover, based on our experience of bringing research into clinical practice, we believe that research should strive to design better ways of modeling and pursuing interpretability, for the obtained solutions to ultimately be most useful

Unveiling evolutionary algorithm representation with DU maps

Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) have proven to be effective in tackling problems in many different domains. However, users are often required to spend a significant amount of effort in fine-tuning the EA parameters in order to make the algorithm work. In principle, visualization tools may be of great help in this laborious task, but current visualization tools are either EA-specific, and hence hardly available to all users, or too general to convey detailed information. In this work, we study the Diversity and Usage map (DU map), a compact visualization for analyzing a key component of every EA, the representation of solutions. In a single heat map, the DU map visualizes for entire runs how diverse the genotype is across the population and to which degree each gene in the genotype contributes to the solution. We demonstrate the generality of the DU map concept by applying it to six EAs that use different representations (bit and integer strings, trees, ensembles of trees, and neural networks). We present the results of an online user study about the usability of the DU map which confirm the suitability of the proposed tool and provide important insights on our design choices. By providing a visualization tool that can be easily tailored by specifying the diversity (D) and usage (U) functions, the DU map aims at being a powerful analysis tool for EAs practitioners, making EAs more transparent and hence lowering the barrier for their use

A Field Guide to Genetic Programming

xiv, 233 p. : il. ; 23 cm.Libro ElectrónicoA Field Guide to Genetic Programming (ISBN 978-1-4092-0073-4) is an introduction to genetic programming (GP). GP is a systematic, domain-independent method for getting computers to solve problems automatically starting from a high-level statement of what needs to be done. Using ideas from natural evolution, GP starts from an ooze of random computer programs, and progressively refines them through processes of mutation and sexual recombination, until solutions emerge. All this without the user having to know or specify the form or structure of solutions in advance. GP has generated a plethora of human-competitive results and applications, including novel scientific discoveries and patentable inventions. The authorsIntroduction -- Representation, initialisation and operators in Tree-based GP -- Getting ready to run genetic programming -- Example genetic programming run -- Alternative initialisations and operators in Tree-based GP -- Modular, grammatical and developmental Tree-based GP -- Linear and graph genetic programming -- Probalistic genetic programming -- Multi-objective genetic programming -- Fast and distributed genetic programming -- GP theory and its applications -- Applications -- Troubleshooting GP -- Conclusions.Contents xi 1 Introduction 1.1 Genetic Programming in a Nutshell 1.2 Getting Started 1.3 Prerequisites 1.4 Overview of this Field Guide I Basics 2 Representation, Initialisation and GP 2.1 Representation 2.2 Initialising the Population 2.3 Selection 2.4 Recombination and Mutation Operators in Tree-based 3 Getting Ready to Run Genetic Programming 19 3.1 Step 1: Terminal Set 19 3.2 Step 2: Function Set 20 3.2.1 Closure 21 3.2.2 Sufficiency 23 3.2.3 Evolving Structures other than Programs 23 3.3 Step 3: Fitness Function 24 3.4 Step 4: GP Parameters 26 3.5 Step 5: Termination and solution designation 27 4 Example Genetic Programming Run 4.1 Preparatory Steps 29 4.2 Step-by-Step Sample Run 31 4.2.1 Initialisation 31 4.2.2 Fitness Evaluation Selection, Crossover and Mutation Termination and Solution Designation Advanced Genetic Programming 5 Alternative Initialisations and Operators in 5.1 Constructing the Initial Population 5.1.1 Uniform Initialisation 5.1.2 Initialisation may Affect Bloat 5.1.3 Seeding 5.2 GP Mutation 5.2.1 Is Mutation Necessary? 5.2.2 Mutation Cookbook 5.3 GP Crossover 5.4 Other Techniques 32 5.5 Tree-based GP 39 6 Modular, Grammatical and Developmental Tree-based GP 47 6.1 Evolving Modular and Hierarchical Structures 47 6.1.1 Automatically Defined Functions 48 6.1.2 Program Architecture and Architecture-Altering 50 6.2 Constraining Structures 51 6.2.1 Enforcing Particular Structures 52 6.2.2 Strongly Typed GP 52 6.2.3 Grammar-based Constraints 53 6.2.4 Constraints and Bias 55 6.3 Developmental Genetic Programming 57 6.4 Strongly Typed Autoconstructive GP with PushGP 59 7 Linear and Graph Genetic Programming 61 7.1 Linear Genetic Programming 61 7.1.1 Motivations 61 7.1.2 Linear GP Representations 62 7.1.3 Linear GP Operators 64 7.2 Graph-Based Genetic Programming 65 7.2.1 Parallel Distributed GP (PDGP) 65 7.2.2 PADO 67 7.2.3 Cartesian GP 67 7.2.4 Evolving Parallel Programs using Indirect Encodings 68 8 Probabilistic Genetic Programming 8.1 Estimation of Distribution Algorithms 69 8.2 Pure EDA GP 71 8.3 Mixing Grammars and Probabilities 74 9 Multi-objective Genetic Programming 75 9.1 Combining Multiple Objectives into a Scalar Fitness Function 75 9.2 Keeping the Objectives Separate 76 9.2.1 Multi-objective Bloat and Complexity Control 77 9.2.2 Other Objectives 78 9.2.3 Non-Pareto Criteria 80 9.3 Multiple Objectives via Dynamic and Staged Fitness Functions 80 9.4 Multi-objective Optimisation via Operator Bias 81 10 Fast and Distributed Genetic Programming 83 10.1 Reducing Fitness Evaluations/Increasing their Effectiveness 83 10.2 Reducing Cost of Fitness with Caches 86 10.3 Parallel and Distributed GP are Not Equivalent 88 10.4 Running GP on Parallel Hardware 89 10.4.1 Master–slave GP 89 10.4.2 GP Running on GPUs 90 10.4.3 GP on FPGAs 92 10.4.4 Sub-machine-code GP 93 10.5 Geographically Distributed GP 93 11 GP Theory and its Applications 97 11.1 Mathematical Models 98 11.2 Search Spaces 99 11.3 Bloat 101 11.3.1 Bloat in Theory 101 11.3.2 Bloat Control in Practice 104 III Practical Genetic Programming 12 Applications 12.1 Where GP has Done Well 12.2 Curve Fitting, Data Modelling and Symbolic Regression 12.3 Human Competitive Results – the Humies 12.4 Image and Signal Processing 12.5 Financial Trading, Time Series, and Economic Modelling 12.6 Industrial Process Control 12.7 Medicine, Biology and Bioinformatics 12.8 GP to Create Searchers and Solvers – Hyper-heuristics xiii 12.9 Entertainment and Computer Games 127 12.10The Arts 127 12.11Compression 128 13 Troubleshooting GP 13.1 Is there a Bug in the Code? 13.2 Can you Trust your Results? 13.3 There are No Silver Bullets 13.4 Small Changes can have Big Effects 13.5 Big Changes can have No Effect 13.6 Study your Populations 13.7 Encourage Diversity 13.8 Embrace Approximation 13.9 Control Bloat 13.10 Checkpoint Results 13.11 Report Well 13.12 Convince your Customers 14 Conclusions Tricks of the Trade A Resources A.1 Key Books A.2 Key Journals A.3 Key International Meetings A.4 GP Implementations A.5 On-Line Resources 145 B TinyGP 151 B.1 Overview of TinyGP 151 B.2 Input Data Files for TinyGP 153 B.3 Source Code 154 B.4 Compiling and Running TinyGP 162 Bibliography 167 Inde

Evolutionary identification of chaotic system

Synthesis, identification and control of complex dynamical systems are usually extremely complicated. When classics methods are used, some simplifications are required which tends to lead to idealized solutions that are far from reality. In contrast, the class of methods based on evolutionary principles is successfully used to solve this kind of problems with a high level of precision. In this paper an alternative method of evolutionary algorithms, which has been successfully proven in many experiments like chaotic systems synthesis, neural network synthesis or electrical circuit synthesis. This paper discusses the possibility of using evolutionary algorithms for the identification of chaotic systems. The main aim of this work is to show that evolutionary algorithms are capable of the identification of chaotic systems without any partial knowledge of internal structure, i.e. based only on measured data. Two different evolutionary algorithms are presented and tested here in a total of 10 versions. Systems selected for numerical experiments here is the well-known logistic equation. For each algorithm and its version, repeated simulations were done, amounting to 50 simulations. According to obtained results it can be stated that evolutionary identification is an alternative and promising way as to how to identify chaotic systems

Program trace optimization

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Springer via the DOI in this record.Paper to be presented at the Fifteenth International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSN XV), Coimbra, Portugal on 8-12 September 2018.We introduce Program Trace Optimization (PTO), a system for `universal heuristic optimization made easy'. This is achieved by strictly separating the problem from the search algorithm. New problem definitions and new generic search algorithms can be added to PTO easily and independently, and any algorithm can be used on any problem. PTO automatically extracts knowledge from the problem specifi cation and designs search operators for the problem. The operators designed by PTO for standard representations coincide with existing ones, but PTO automatically designs operators for arbitrary representations

Automatic Design of Semantic Similarity Ensembles Using Grammatical Evolution

Semantic similarity measures are widely used in natural language processing to catalyze various computer-related tasks. However, no single semantic similarity measure is the most appropriate for all tasks, and researchers often use ensemble strategies to ensure performance. This research work proposes a method for automatically designing semantic similarity ensembles. In fact, our proposed method uses grammatical evolution, for the first time, to automatically select and aggregate measures from a pool of candidates to create an ensemble that maximizes correlation to human judgment. The method is evaluated on several benchmark datasets and compared to state-of-the-art ensembles, showing that it can significantly improve similarity assessment accuracy and outperform existing methods in some cases. As a result, our research demonstrates the potential of using grammatical evolution to automatically compare text and prove the benefits of using ensembles for semantic similarity tasks. The source code that illustrates our approach can be downloaded from https://github.com/jorge-martinez-gil/sesige.Comment: 29 page