Automating biomedical data science through tree-based pipeline optimization

Over the past decade, data science and machine learning has grown from a mysterious art form to a staple tool across a variety of fields in academia, business, and government. In this paper, we introduce the concept of tree-based pipeline optimization for automating one of the most tedious parts of machine learning---pipeline design. We implement a Tree-based Pipeline Optimization Tool (TPOT) and demonstrate its effectiveness on a series of simulated and real-world genetic data sets. In particular, we show that TPOT can build machine learning pipelines that achieve competitive classification accuracy and discover novel pipeline operators---such as synthetic feature constructors---that significantly improve classification accuracy on these data sets. We also highlight the current challenges to pipeline optimization, such as the tendency to produce pipelines that overfit the data, and suggest future research paths to overcome these challenges. As such, this work represents an early step toward fully automating machine learning pipeline design.Comment: 16 pages, 5 figures, to appear in EvoBIO 2016 proceeding

Modelling epistasis in genetic disease using Petri nets, evolutionary computation and frequent itemset mining

Petri nets are useful for mathematically modelling disease-causing genetic epistasis. A Petri net model of an interaction has the potential to lead to biological insight into the cause of a genetic disease. However, defining a Petri net by hand for a particular interaction is extremely difficult because of the sheer complexity of the problem and degrees of freedom inherent in a Petri net’s architecture. We propose therefore a novel method, based on evolutionary computation and data mining, for automatically constructing Petri net models of non-linear gene interactions. The method comprises two main steps. Firstly, an initial partial Petri net is set up with several repeated sub-nets that model individual genes and a set of constraints, comprising relevant common sense and biological knowledge, is also defined. These constraints characterise the class of Petri nets that are desired. Secondly, this initial Petri net structure and the constraints are used as the input to a genetic algorithm. The genetic algorithm searches for a Petri net architecture that is both a superset of the initial net, and also conforms to all of the given constraints. The genetic algorithm evaluation function that we employ gives equal weighting to both the accuracy of the net and also its parsimony. We demonstrate our method using an epistatic model related to the presence of digital ulcers in systemic sclerosis patients that was recently reported in the literature. Our results show that although individual “perfect” Petri nets can frequently be discovered for this interaction, the true value of this approach lies in generating many different perfect nets, and applying data mining techniques to them in order to elucidate common and statistically significant patterns of interaction

Accelerated Particle Swarm Optimization and Support Vector Machine for Business Optimization and Applications

Business optimization is becoming increasingly important because all business activities aim to maximize the profit and performance of products and services, under limited resources and appropriate constraints. Recent developments in support vector machine and metaheuristics show many advantages of these techniques. In particular, particle swarm optimization is now widely used in solving tough optimization problems. In this paper, we use a combination of a recently developed Accelerated PSO and a nonlinear support vector machine to form a framework for solving business optimization problems. We first apply the proposed APSO-SVM to production optimization, and then use it for income prediction and project scheduling. We also carry out some parametric studies and discuss the advantages of the proposed metaheuristic SVM.Comment: 12 page

Application of multiobjective genetic programming to the design of robot failure recognition systems

We present an evolutionary approach using multiobjective genetic programming (MOGP) to derive optimal feature extraction preprocessing stages for robot failure detection. This data-driven machine learning method is compared both with conventional (nonevolutionary) classifiers and a set of domain-dependent feature extraction methods. We conclude MOGP is an effective and practical design method for failure recognition systems with enhanced recognition accuracy over conventional classifiers, independent of domain knowledge

Learning Effective Changes for Software Projects

The primary motivation of much of software analytics is decision making. How to make these decisions? Should one make decisions based on lessons that arise from within a particular project? Or should one generate these decisions from across multiple projects? This work is an attempt to answer these questions. Our work was motivated by a realization that much of the current generation software analytics tools focus primarily on prediction. Indeed prediction is a useful task, but it is usually followed by "planning" about what actions need to be taken. This research seeks to address the planning task by seeking methods that support actionable analytics that offer clear guidance on what to do. Specifically, we propose XTREE and BELLTREE algorithms for generating a set of actionable plans within and across projects. Each of these plans, if followed will improve the quality of the software project.Comment: 4 pages, 2 figures. This a submission for ASE 2017 Doctoral Symposiu

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

Performance of genetic programming optimised Bowtie2 on genome comparison and analytic testing (GCAT) benchmarks.

Genetic studies are increasingly based on short noisy next generation scanners. Typically complete DNA sequences are assembled by matching short NextGen sequences against reference genomes. Despite considerable algorithmic gains since the turn of the millennium, matching both single ended and paired end strings to a reference remains computationally demanding. Further tailoring Bioinformatics tools to each new task or scanner remains highly skilled and labour intensive. With this in mind, we recently demonstrated a genetic programming based automated technique which generated a version of the state-of-the-art alignment tool Bowtie2 which was considerably faster on short sequences produced by a scanner at the Broad Institute and released as part of The Thousand Genome Project

A Survey on Compiler Autotuning using Machine Learning

Since the mid-1990s, researchers have been trying to use machine-learning based approaches to solve a number of different compiler optimization problems. These techniques primarily enhance the quality of the obtained results and, more importantly, make it feasible to tackle two main compiler optimization problems: optimization selection (choosing which optimizations to apply) and phase-ordering (choosing the order of applying optimizations). The compiler optimization space continues to grow due to the advancement of applications, increasing number of compiler optimizations, and new target architectures. Generic optimization passes in compilers cannot fully leverage newly introduced optimizations and, therefore, cannot keep up with the pace of increasing options. This survey summarizes and classifies the recent advances in using machine learning for the compiler optimization field, particularly on the two major problems of (1) selecting the best optimizations and (2) the phase-ordering of optimizations. The survey highlights the approaches taken so far, the obtained results, the fine-grain classification among different approaches and finally, the influential papers of the field.Comment: version 5.0 (updated on September 2018)- Preprint Version For our Accepted Journal @ ACM CSUR 2018 (42 pages) - This survey will be updated quarterly here (Send me your new published papers to be added in the subsequent version) History: Received November 2016; Revised August 2017; Revised February 2018; Accepted March 2018