skip to main content
10.1145/3512290.3528850acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Multi-modal multi-objective model-based genetic programming to find multiple diverse high-quality models

Authors Info & Claims
Published:08 July 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is an important and rapidly expanding research topic. The goal of XAI is to gain trust in a machine learning (ML) model through clear insights into how the model arrives at its predictions. Genetic programming (GP) is often cited as being uniquely well-suited to contribute to XAI because of its capacity to learn (small) symbolic models that have the potential to be interpreted. Nevertheless, like many ML algorithms, GP typically results in a single best model. However, in practice, the best model in terms of training error may well not be the most suitable one as judged by a domain expert for various reasons, including overfitting, multiple different models existing that have similar accuracy and unwanted errors on particular data points due to typical accuracy measures like mean squared error. Hence, to increase chances that domain experts deem a resulting model plausible, it becomes important to be able to explicitly search for multiple, diverse, high-quality models that trade-off different meanings of accuracy. In this paper, we achieve exactly this with a novel multi-modal multi-tree multi-objective GP approach that extends a modern model-based GP algorithm known as GP-GOMEA that is already effective at searching for small expressions.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Anton Bouter, Tanja Alderliesten, Cees Witteveen, and Peter A. N. Bosman. 2017. Exploiting Linkage Information in Real-Valued Optimization with the Real-Valued Gene-Pool Optimal Mixing Evolutionary Algorithm. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (Berlin, Germany) (GECCO '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 705--712. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Armand R. Burks and William F. Punch. 2015. An Efficient Structural Diversity Technique for Genetic Programming. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (Madrid, Spain) (GECCO '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 991--998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. R.B. Chapman. 1972. Hydrodynamic drag of semisubmerged ships. Journal of Basic Engineering 94 (1972), 879--884. Issue 4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. European Commission, Content Directorate-General for Communications Networks, and Technology. 2019. Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. Publications Office. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Edwin D. de Jong, Richard A. Watson, and Jordan B. Pollack. 2001. Reducing Bloat and Promoting Diversity Using Multi-Objective Methods. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (San Francisco, California) (GECCO'01). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 11--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan. 2002. A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-IL Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6, 2 (April 2002), 182--197. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Arkadiy Dushatskiy, Marco Virgolin, Anton Bouter, Dirk Thierens, and Peter AN Bosman. 2021. Parameterless Gene-pool Optimal Mixing Evolutionary Algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.05259 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Anikó Ekárt and Sandor Z. Németh. 2000. A Metric for Genetic Programs and Fitness Sharing. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Genetic Programming. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 259--270.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Benjamin P. Evans, Bing Xue, and Mengjie Zhang. 2019. What's inside the Black-Box? A Genetic Programming Method for Interpreting Complex Machine Learning Models. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (Prague, Czech Republic) (GECCO '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1012--1020. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Leonardo Augusto Ferreira, Frederico Gadelha Guimaraes, and Rodrigo Silva. 2020. Applying genetic programming to improve interpretability in machine learning models. In 2020 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC). IEEE, 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Edgar Galván and Marc Schoenauer. 2019. Promoting Semantic Diversity in Multi-Objective Genetic Programming. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (Prague, Czech Republic) (GECCO '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1021--1029. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. J Gerritsma, R Onnink, and A Versluis. 1981. Geometry, resistance and stability of the Delft systematic yacht hull series. International shipbuilding progress 28, 328 (1981), 276--297.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Ilan Gronau and Shlomo Moran. 2007. Optimal implementations of UPGMA and other common clustering algorithms. Inform. Process. Lett. 104, 6 (2007), 205--210.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. David Harrison and Daniel L Rubinfeld. 1978. Hedonic housing prices and the demand for clean air. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 5, 1 (1978), 81--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Herbert J. Klausmeier. 1992. Concept Learning and Concept Teaching. Educational Psychologist 27, 3 (1992), 267--286. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2703_1 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. William La Cava, Patryk Orzechowski, Bogdan Burlacu, Fabrício Olivetti de Franca, Marco Virgolin, Ying Jin, Michael Kommenda, and Jason H Moore. 2021. Contemporary symbolic regression methods and their relative performance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.14351 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ngoc Hoang Luong, Han La Poutré, and Peter A.N. Bosman. 2014. Multi-Objective Gene-Pool Optimal Mixing Evolutionary Algorithms. In Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (GECCO '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 357--364. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. R I (Bob) McKay. 2000. Fitness Sharing in Genetic Programming. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (Las Vegas, Nevada) (GECCO'00). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 435--442.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Christoph Molnar. 2019. Interpretable Machine Learning. https://chrisrtophm.github.io/interpretable-ml-book/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Michael D. Schmidt and Hod Lipson. 2010. Age-Fitness Pareto Optimization. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (Portland, Oregon, USA) (GECCO '10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 543--544. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Dirk Thierens and Peter A.N. Bosman. 2011. Optimal Mixing Evolutionary Algorithms. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (Dublin, Ireland) (GECCO '11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 617--624. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Ernest O Tuck. 1987. Wave resistance of thin ships and catamarans. Report T8701. Applied Mathematics Department, The University of Adelaide (1987), 15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Marco Virgolin, Tanja Alderliesten, Cees Witteveen, and Peter AN Bosman. 2021. Improving model-based genetic programming for symbolic regression of small expressions. Evolutionary Computation 29, 2 (2021), 211--237.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. I.-C. Yeh. 1998. Modeling of strength of high-performance concrete using artificial neural networks. Cement and Concrete Research 28, 12 (1998), 1797--1808. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Multi-modal multi-objective model-based genetic programming to find multiple diverse high-quality models

    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 '22: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
      July 2022
      1472 pages
      ISBN:9781450392372
      DOI:10.1145/3512290

      Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author

      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike International 4.0 License.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 8 July 2022

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      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