Abstract
This chapter describes the Sequential Symbolic Regression (SSR) method, a new strategy for function approximation in symbolic regression. The SSR method is inspired by the sequential covering strategy from machine learning, but instead of sequentially reducing the size of the problem being solved, it sequentially transforms the original problem into potentially simpler problems. This transformation is performed according to the semantic distances between the desired and obtained outputs and a geometric semantic operator. The rationale behind SSR is that, after generating a suboptimal function f via symbolic regression, the output errors can be approximated by another function, in a subsequent iteration. The method was tested in eight polynomial functions, and compared with canonical genetic programming (GP) and geometric semantic genetic programming (SGP). Results showed that SSR significantly outperforms SGP and presents no statistical difference from GP. More importantly, they show the potential of the proposed approach: an effective way of applying geometric semantic operators to combine different (partial) solutions, and at the same time, avoiding the exponential growth problem arising from the use of semantic operators.
Keywords
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The selection of building blocks based on fitness proposed by Rosca and Ballard (1994) is an exception to the syntax-oriented selection, although there is no guarantee that different modules are solving different parts of the problem.
- 2.
It is unlikely that a solution will reach (near) zero error only for a subset of the points (training cases), unless it is the optimal solution, which in this case it will reach a (near) zero error for all points.
References
Angeline PJ, Pollack JB (1992) Evolutionary induction of subroutines. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Cognitive Science Conference, pp 236–241
Angeline PJ, Pollack JB (1994) Coevolving high-level representations. In: Langton C (ed) Artificial life III. Addison-Wesley, Reading, pp 55–71
Christensen S, Oppacher F (2007) Solving the artificial ant on the Santa Fe trail problem in 20,696 fitness evaluations. In: GECCO '07: Proceedings of the 9th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, London, vol 2, pp 1574–1579
Demšar J (2006) Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. J Mach Learn Res 7:1–30
Jackson D, Gibbons AP (2007) Layered learning in Boolean GP problems. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Genetic Programming, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4445, pp 148–159. Springer, Valencia
Keijzer M, Ryan C, Cattolico M (2004) Run transferable libraries—learning functional bias in problem domains. In: Genetic and evolutionary computation – GECCO-2004, Part II, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3103, pp 531–542. Springer, Seattle
Koza JR (1992a) Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection. MIT, Cambridge
Koza JR (1992b) Hierarchical automatic function definition in genetic programming. In: Whitley LD (ed) Foundations of genetic algorithms 2.Morgan Kaufmann, Vail, pp 297–318
Koza JR (1994) Genetic programming II: automatic discovery of reusable programs. MIT, Cambridge
Lee GY (1999) Genetic recursive regression for modeling and forecasting real-world chaotic time series. In: Advances in genetic programming III. MIT, Cambridge, pp 401–423
McKay B (2000) Partial functions in fitness-shared genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the 2000 Congress on Evolutionary Computation CEC00, IEEE Press, La Jolla Marriott Hotel La Jolla, California, USA, vol 1, pp 349–356
Moraglio A, Krawiec K, Johnson C (2012) Geometric semantic genetic programming. In: Parallel problem solving from nature - PPSN XII, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7491, pp 21–31. Springer, Berlin
Otero FEB, Johnson CG (2013) Automated problem decomposition for the boolean domain with genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Genetic Programming, Euro GP 2013, Vienna, Austria, pp 169–180
Roberts SC, Howard D, Koza JR (2001) Evolving modules in genetic programming by subtree encapsulation. In: Genetic programming, Proceedings of EuroGP'2001, Springer-Verlag, Lake Como, Italy, LNCS, vol 2038, pp 160–175
Rosca JP, Ballard DH (1994) Learning by adapting representations in genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, IEEE Press, Orlando, Florida, USA, vol 1, pp 407–412
Spector L, Harrington K, Martin B, Helmuth T (2011a) What’s in an evolved name? the evolution of modularity via tag-based reference. In: Genetic programming theory and practice IX, Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. Springer, Ann Arbor, pp 1–16
Spector L, Martin B, Harrington K, Helmuth T (2011b) Tag-based modules in genetic programming. In: GECCO '11: Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, ACM, Dublin, Ireland, pp 1419–1426
Spector L, Harrington K, Helmuth T (2012) Tag-based modularity in tree-based genetic programming. In: GECCO '12: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation conference, ACM, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, pp 815–822
Uy NQ, Hoai NX, ONeill M, McKay RI, Galván-L&00F3#;pez E (2011) Semantically-based crossover in genetic programming: application to real-valued symbolic regression. Genet Programm Evol Mach 12(2):91–119
Vanneschi L, Castelli M, Manzoni L, Silva S (2013) A new implementation of geometric semantic GP and its application to problems in pharmacokinetics. In: Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Genetic Programming, Euro GP 2013, Vienna, Austria, vol 7831, pp 205–216
Vanneschi L, Castelli M, Silva S (2014) A survey of semantic methods in genetic programming. Genet Programm Evol Mach 15(2):1–20
Walker JA, Miller JF (2008) The automatic acquisition, evolution and reuse of modules in cartesian genetic programming. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 12(4):397–417
White D, McDermott J, Castelli M, Manzoni L, Goldman B, Kronberger G, Jakowski W, OReilly UM, Luke S (2013) Better GP benchmarks: community survey results and proposals. Genet Programm Evol Mach 14(1):3–29
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Oliveira, L., Otero, F., Pappa, G., Albinati, J. (2015). Sequential Symbolic Regression with Genetic Programming. In: Riolo, R., Worzel, W., Kotanchek, M. (eds) Genetic Programming Theory and Practice XII. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16030-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16030-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16029-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16030-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)