skip to main content
10.1145/2908812.2908851acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

The Impact of Hyperselection on Lexicase Selection

Published:20 July 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Lexicase selection is a parent selection method that has been shown to improve the problem solving power of genetic programming over a range of problems. Previous work has shown that it can also produce hyperselection events, in which a single individual is selected many more times than other individuals. Here we investigate the role that hyperselection plays in the problem-solving performance of lexicase selection. We run genetic programming on a set of program synthesis benchmark problems using lexicase and tournament selection, confirming that hyperselection occurs significantly more often and more drastically with lexicase selection, which also performs significantly better. We then show results from an experiment indicating that hyperselection is not integral to the problem-solving performance or diversity maintenance observed when using lexicase selection. We conclude that the power of lexicase selection stems from the collection of individuals that it selects, not from the unusual frequencies with which it sometimes selects them.

References

  1. T. Back. Selective pressure in evolutionary algorithms: a characterization of selection mechanisms. In Evolutionary Computation, 1994. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence., Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on, pages 57--62 vol.1, Jun 1994.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. T. Blickle and L. Thiele. A mathematical analysis of tournament selection. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 9--16, San Francisco, CA, USA, 1995. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. J. E. Fieldsend and A. Moraglio. Strength through diversity: Disaggregation and multi-objectivisation approaches for genetic programming. In GECCO '15: Proceedings of the 2015 conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. E. Galván-López, B. Cody-Kenny, L. Trujillo, and A. Kattan. Using semantics in the selection mechanism in genetic programming: A simple method for promoting semantic diversity. In L. G. de la Fraga, editor, 2013 IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation, volume 1, pages 2972--2979, Cancun, Mexico, June 20--23 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. T. Helmuth. General Program Synthesis from Examples Using Genetic Programming with Parent Selection Based on Random Lexicographic Orderings of Test Cases. Ph.D. dissertation, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. T. Helmuth, N. F. McPhee, and L. Spector. Lexicase selection for program synthesis: a diversity analysis. In Genetic Programming Theory and Practice XIII, Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. T. Helmuth and L. Spector. General program synthesis benchmark suite. In GECCO '15: Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, July 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. T. Helmuth, L. Spector, and J. Matheson. Solving uncompromising problems with lexicase selection. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 19(5):630--643, Oct. 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. K. Krawiec and P. Lichocki. Using co-solvability to model and exploit synergetic effects in evolution. In PPSN 2010 11th International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving From Nature, volume 6239 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 492--501, Krakow, Poland, 11--15 Sept. 2010. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. K. Krawiec and P. Liskowski. Automatic derivation of search objectives for test-based genetic programming. In 18th European Conference on Genetic Programming, volume 9025 of LNCS, pages 53--65, Copenhagen, 8--10 Apr. 2015. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. K. Krawiec, J. Swan, and U.-M. O'Reilly. Behavioral program synthesis: Insights and prospects. In Genetic Programming Theory and Practice XIII, Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. Springer, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. P. Liskowski, K. Krawiec, T. Helmuth, and L. Spector. Comparison of semantic-aware selection methods in genetic programming. In GECCO 2015 workshop on Semantic Methods in Genetic Programming. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. R. I. McKay. Fitness sharing in genetic programming. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO-2000), pages 435--442, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 10--12 July 2000. Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. N. F. McPhee, D. Donatucci, and T. Helmuth. Using graph databases to explore the dynamics of genetic programming runs. In Genetic Programming Theory and Practice XIII, Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. L. Spector. Assessment of problem modality by differential performance of lexicase selection in genetic programming: A preliminary report. In 1st workshop on Understanding Problems (GECCO-UP), pages 401--408, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 7--11 July 2012. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. L. Spector and T. Helmuth. Uniform linear transformation with repair and alternation in genetic programming. In Genetic Programming Theory and Practice XI, Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, chapter 8, pages 137--153. Springer, Ann Arbor, USA, 9--11 May 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. L. Spector, J. Klein, and M. Keijzer. The Push3 execution stack and the evolution of control. In GECCO 2005: Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, pages 1689--1696, Washington DC, USA, 2005. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. L. Spector and A. Robinson. Genetic programming and autoconstructive evolution with the push programming language. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 3(1):7--40, Mar. 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. The Impact of Hyperselection on Lexicase Selection

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        GECCO '16: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference 2016
        July 2016
        1196 pages
        ISBN:9781450342063
        DOI:10.1145/2908812

        Copyright © 2016 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 20 July 2016

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        GECCO '16 Paper Acceptance Rate137of381submissions,36%Overall Acceptance Rate1,669of4,410submissions,38%

        Upcoming Conference

        GECCO '24
        Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
        July 14 - 18, 2024
        Melbourne , VIC , Australia

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader