Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2330163.2330273acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Genetic programming needs better benchmarks

Published: 07 July 2012 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Genetic programming (GP) is not a field noted for the rigor of its benchmarking. Some of its benchmark problems are popular purely through historical contingency, and they can be criticized as too easy or as providing misleading information concerning real-world performance, but they persist largely because of inertia and the lack of good alternatives. Even where the problems themselves are impeccable, comparisons between studies are made more difficult by the lack of standardization. We argue that the definition of standard benchmarks is an essential step in the maturation of the field. We make several contributions towards this goal. We motivate the development of a benchmark suite and define its goals; we survey existing practice; we enumerate many candidate benchmarks; we report progress on reference implementations; and we set out a concrete plan for gathering feedback from the GP community that would, if adopted, lead to a standard set of benchmarks.

    References

    [1]
    A. Agapitos and S. M. Lucas. Evolving Modular Recursive Sorting Algorithms. In Proc. EuroGP. 2007.
    [2]
    F. Archetti, S. Lanzeni, E. Messina, and L. Vanneschi. Genetic Programming and Other Machine Learning Approaches to Predict Median Oral Lethal Dose (LD50) and Plasma Protein Binding Levels (%PPB) of Drugs. In Proc. EvoBIO. 2007.
    [3]
    Y. Azaria and M. Sipper. GP-Gammon: Genetically Programming Backgammon Players. GPEM, 6:283--300, 2005.
    [4]
    D. F. Barrero, M. R-Moreno, B. Castano, and D. Camacho. An Empirical Study on the Accuracy of Computational Effort in Genetic Programming. In Proc. CEC. 2011.
    [5]
    A. Benbassat and M. Sipper. Evolving Lose-Checkers Players using Genetic Programming. In Proc. IEEE Computational Intelligence and Games. 2010.
    [6]
    R. Bradley, A. Brabazon, and M. O'Neill. Dynamic High Frequency Trading: A Neuro-Evolutionary Approach. In Proc. EvoWorkshops. 2009.
    [7]
    S. Christensen and F. Oppacher. An Analysis of Koza's Computational Effort Statistic for Genetic Programming. In Proc. EuroGP. Springer-Verlag, 2002.
    [8]
    S. Christensen and F. Oppacher. The Y-Test: Fairly Comparing Experimental Setups with Unequal Effort. In Proc. CEC. IEEE, 2006.
    [9]
    G. Cuccu and F. Gomez. When novelty is not enough. In Proc. EvoApplications. 2011.
    [10]
    J. M. Daida, et al. Challenges with Verification, Repeatability, and Meaningful Comparison in Genetic Programming: Gibson's Magic. In Proc. GECCO. 1999.
    [11]
    J. M. Daida, et al. What Makes a Problem GP-Hard? Analysis of a Tunably Difficult Problem in Genetic Programming. GPEM, 2:165--191, 2001.
    [12]
    K. A. De Jong. An Analysis of the Behavior of a Class of Genetic Adaptive Systems. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer and Communication Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1975.
    [13]
    I. Dempsey, M. O'Neill, and A. Brabazon. Adaptive Trading With Grammatical Evolution. In Proc. CEC. 2006.
    [14]
    C. Drummond and N. Japkowicz. Warning: statistical benchmarking is addictive. kicking the habit in machine learning. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 22(1):67--80, 2010.
    [15]
    M. Ebner and T. Tiede. Evolving Driving Controllers using Genetic Programming. In Proc. IEEE Computational Intelligence and Games. 2009.
    [16]
    R. Feldt, et al. GP-Beagle: A benchmarking problem repository for the genetic programming community. In Late Breaking Papers at GECCO. 2000.
    [17]
    E. Galván-López, J. Swafford, M. O'Neill, and A. Brabazon. Evolving a Ms. PacMan Controller Using Grammatical Evolution. In Applications of Evolutionary Computation. Springer, 2010.
    [18]
    C. Gathercole and P. Ross. An Adverse Interaction between Crossover and Restricted Tree Depth in Genetic Programming. In Proc. GECCO. 1996.
    [19]
    Genetic Programming Mailing List Discussion. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/genetic\textunderscoreprogramming/message/5410, 2012. {Online: accessed 27-Jan-2012}.
    [20]
    D. E. Goldberg and U.-M. O'Reilly. Where does the Good Stuff Go, and Why? How Contextual Semantics Influence Program Structure in Simple Genetic Programming. In Proc. EuroGP. 1998.
    [21]
    S. Gustafson, E. K. Burke, and N. Krasnogor. The Tree-String Problem: An Artificial Domain for Structure and Content Search. In Proc. EuroGP. 2005.
    [22]
    J. V. Hansen, P. B. Lowry, R. D. Meservy, and D. M. McDonald. Genetic Programming for Prevention of Cyberterrorism through Dynamic and Evolving Intrusion Detection. Decision Support Systems, 43:1362--1374, 2007.
    [23]
    S. Harding, J. F. Miller, and W. Banzhaf. Developments in Cartesian Genetic Programming: self-modifying CGP. GPEM, 11:397--439, 2010.
    [24]
    A. Hauptman and M. Sipper. GP-EndChess: Using Genetic Programming to Evolve Chess Endgame Players. In Proc. EuroGP. Springer, 2005.
    [25]
    T.-H. Hoang, et al. ORDERTREE: a New Test Problem for Genetic Programming. In Proc. GECCO. 2006.
    [26]
    D. Jakobović and L. Budin. Dynamic Scheduling with Genetic Programming. In Proc. EuroGP. 2006.
    [27]
    H. Jäske. Prediction of Sunspots by GP. In Proc. Second Nordic Workshop on Genetic Algorithms. Vaasa, Finland, 1996.
    [28]
    M. Keijzer. Improving Symbolic Regression with Interval Arithmetic and Linear Scaling. In Proc. EuroGP. 2003.
    [29]
    K. E. Kinnear, Jr. Evolving a Sort: Lessons in Genetic Programming. In Proc. of the International Conference on Neural Networks. 1993.
    [30]
    M. F. Korns. Accuracy in Symbolic Regression. In Proc. GPTP. 2011.
    [31]
    J. Koza. A Genetic Approach to the Truck Backer Upper Problem and the Inter-twined Spiral Problem. In Proc. International Joint Conference on Neural Networks. 1992.
    [32]
    J. R. Koza. Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. MIT Press, 1992.
    [33]
    J. R. Koza. Genetic Programming II: Automatic Discovery of Reusable Programs. MIT Press, 1994.
    [34]
    W. Langdon and W. Banzhaf. Repeated Patterns in Genetic Programming. Natural Computing, 7:589--613, 2008.
    [35]
    W. B. Langdon and W. Banzhaf. Repeated Sequences in Linear Genetic Programming Genomes. Complex Systems, 15(4):285--306, 2005.
    [36]
    W. B. Langdon and R. Poli. An Analysis of the MAX problem in Genetic Programming. In Proc. GECCO. 1997.
    [37]
    W. B. Langdon, J. Rowsell, and A. P. Harrison. Creating Regular Expressions as mRNA Motifs with GP to Predict Human Exon Splitting. In Proc. GECCO. 2009.
    [38]
    W. B. Langdon, O. Sanchez Graillet, and A. P. Harrison. Automated DNA Motif Discovery. arXiv.org, 2010.
    [39]
    M. Lones, A. Tyrrell, S. Stepney, and L. Caves. Controlling Complex Dynamics with Artificial Biochemical Networks. In Proc. EuroGP, pp. 159--170. 2010.
    [40]
    S. Lucas. Othello Competition. http://algoval.essex.ac.uk:8080/othello/html/Othello.html, 2012. {Online; accessed 27-Jan-2012}.
    [41]
    S. Lucas. The Physical Travelling Salesperson Problem. http://algoval.essex.ac.uk/ptsp/ptsp.html, 2012. {Online: accessed 27-Jan-2012}.
    [42]
    S. Luke. ECJ 20: An Evolutionary Computation Library in Java. http://cs.gmu.edu/~eclab/projects/ecj/, 2012. {Online; accessed 27-Jan-2012}.
    [43]
    S. Luke and L. Panait. Is The Perfect The Enemy Of The Good? In Proc. GECCO. 2002.
    [44]
    T. McConaghy. FFX: Fast, Scalable, Deterministic Symbolic Regression Technology. In Proc. GPTP. 2011.
    [45]
    Q. U. Nguyen, et al. Semantically-Based Crossover in Genetic Programming: Application to Real-valued Symbolic Regression. GPEM, 12:91--119, 2011.
    [46]
    M. Nicolau, M. Schoenauer, and W. Banzhaf. Evolving Genes to Balance a Pole. In Proc. EuroGP. 2010.
    [47]
    J. Niehaus and W. Banzhaf. More on Computational Effort Statistics for Genetic Programming. In Proc. EuroGP. 2003.
    [48]
    M. O'Neill, A. Brabazon, and E. Hemberg. Subtree Deactivation Control with Grammatical Genetic Programming in Dynamic Environments. In Proc. CEC. 2008.
    [49]
    M. O'Neill, L. Vanneschi, S. Gustafson, and W. Banzhaf. Open Issues in Genetic Programming. GPEM, 11(3/4):339--363, 2010.
    [50]
    L. Pagie and P. Hogeweg. Evolutionary Consequences of Coevolving Targets. Evolutionary Computation, 5:401--418, 1997.
    [51]
    N. Paterson and M. Livesey. Performance Comparison in Genetic Programming. In Late Breaking Papers at GECCO. 2000.
    [52]
    B. Punch, D. Zongker, and E. Goodman. The Royal Tree Problem, a Benchmark for Single and Multiple Population Genetic Programming. In Advances in Genetic Programming 2, pp. 299--316. MIT Press, 1996.
    [53]
    R. Salomon. Performance degradation of genetic algorithms under coordinate rotation. In Proc. EP, pp. 153--161. 1996.
    [54]
    H.-P. Schwefel. Evolutionsstrategie und numerische Optimierung. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universität Berlin, Germany, 1975.
    [55]
    B. Sendhoff, M. Roberts, and X. Yao. Evolutionary Computation Benchmarking Repository. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine, 1(4):50--60, 2006.
    [56]
    S. Silva and E. Costa. Dynamic Limits for Bloat Control in Genetic Programming and a Review of Past and Current Bloat Theories. GPEM, 10:141--179, 2009.
    [57]
    S. Silva and L. Vanneschi. State-of-the-Art Genetic Programming for Predicting Human Oral Bioavailability of Drugs. In Proc. 4th International Workshop on Practical Applications of Computational Biology and Bioinformatics. 2010.
    [58]
    M. Sipper, Y. Azaria, A. Hauptman, and Y. Shichel. Designing an Evolutionary Strategizing Machine for Game Playing and Beyond. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, IEEE Transactions on, 37(4):583--593, 2007.
    [59]
    J. Togelius, S. Karakovskiy, J. Koutnik, and J. Schmidhuber. Super Mario Evolution. In Proc. IEEE Computational Intelligence and Games. 2009.
    [60]
    M. Tomassini, L. Vanneschi, P. Collard, and M. Clergue. A Study of Fitness Distance Correlation as a Difficulty Measure in Genetic Programming. Evol. Comput., 13:213--239, June 2005.
    [61]
    L. Vanneschi. Theory and Practice for Efficient Genetic Programming. Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Sciences, University of Lausanne, Switzerland, 2004.
    [62]
    L. Vanneschi, M. Castelli, and L. Manzoni. The K Landscapes: a Tunably Difficult Benchmark for Genetic Programming. In Proc. GECCO. 2011.
    [63]
    L. Vanneschi and G. Cuccu. Variable Size Population for Dynamic Optimization with Genetic Programming. In Proc. GECCO. 2009.
    [64]
    E. Vladislavleva, G. Smits, and D. Den Hertog. Order of Nonlinearity as a Complexity Measure for Models Generated by Symbolic Regression via Pareto Genetic Programming. IEEE Trans EC, 13(2):333--349, 2009.
    [65]
    N. Wagner, Z. Michalewicz, M. Khouja, and R. McGregor. Time Series Forecasting for Dynamic Environments: The DyFor Genetic Program Model. IEEE Trans EC, 2007.
    [66]
    J. Walker and J. Miller. Predicting Prime Numbers Using Cartesian Genetic Programming. In Proc. EuroGP. 2007.
    [67]
    J. A. Walker, K. Völk, S. L. Smith, and J. F. Miller. Parallel Evolution using Multi-chromosome Cartesian Genetic Programming. GPEM, 10:417--445, 2009.
    [68]
    M. Walker, H. Edwards, and C. Messom. The Reliability of Confidence Intervals for Computational Effort Comparisons. In Proc. GECCO. 2007.
    [69]
    W. Weimer, T. Nguyen, C. Le Goues, and S. Forrest. Automatically Finding Patches using Genetic Programming. In Proc. 31st International Conference on Software Engineering. 2009.
    [70]
    P. Widera, J. Garibaldi, and N. Krasnogor. GP challenge: Evolving energy function for protein structure prediction. GPEM, 11:61--88, 2010.
    [71]
    T. Yu. Hierarchical Processing for Evolving Recursive and Modular Programs Using Higher-Order Functions and Lambda Abstraction. GPEM, 2:345--380, 2001.

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)M5GP: Parallel Multidimensional Genetic Programming with Multidimensional Populations for Symbolic RegressionMathematical and Computational Applications10.3390/mca2902002529:2(25)Online publication date: 18-Mar-2024
    • (2024)CGP++ : A Modern C++ Implementation of Cartesian Genetic ProgrammingProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference10.1145/3638529.3654092(13-22)Online publication date: 14-Jul-2024
    • (2024)A Functional Analysis Approach to Symbolic RegressionProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference10.1145/3638529.3654079(859-867)Online publication date: 14-Jul-2024
    • Show More Cited By

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    GECCO '12: Proceedings of the 14th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation
    July 2012
    1396 pages
    ISBN:9781450311779
    DOI:10.1145/2330163
    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 ACM 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]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 07 July 2012

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. benchmarks
    2. genetic programming

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    GECCO '12
    Sponsor:
    GECCO '12: Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
    July 7 - 11, 2012
    Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,669 of 4,410 submissions, 38%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)140
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)23

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)M5GP: Parallel Multidimensional Genetic Programming with Multidimensional Populations for Symbolic RegressionMathematical and Computational Applications10.3390/mca2902002529:2(25)Online publication date: 18-Mar-2024
    • (2024)CGP++ : A Modern C++ Implementation of Cartesian Genetic ProgrammingProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference10.1145/3638529.3654092(13-22)Online publication date: 14-Jul-2024
    • (2024)A Functional Analysis Approach to Symbolic RegressionProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference10.1145/3638529.3654079(859-867)Online publication date: 14-Jul-2024
    • (2024)Geometric semantic GP with linear scaling: Darwinian versus Lamarckian evolutionGenetic Programming and Evolvable Machines10.1007/s10710-024-09488-025:2Online publication date: 1-Dec-2024
    • (2023)Predicting ordinary differential equations with transformersProceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning10.5555/3618408.3618491(1978-2002)Online publication date: 23-Jul-2023
    • (2023)General Boolean Function Benchmark SuiteProceedings of the 17th ACM/SIGEVO Conference on Foundations of Genetic Algorithms10.1145/3594805.3607131(84-95)Online publication date: 30-Aug-2023
    • (2023)Priors for symbolic regressionProceedings of the Companion Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation10.1145/3583133.3596327(2402-2411)Online publication date: 15-Jul-2023
    • (2023)Towards a General Boolean Function Benchmark SuiteProceedings of the Companion Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation10.1145/3583133.3590685(591-594)Online publication date: 15-Jul-2023
    • (2023)Parametrizing GP Trees for Better Symbolic Regression Performance through Gradient Descent.Proceedings of the Companion Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation10.1145/3583133.3590574(619-622)Online publication date: 15-Jul-2023
    • (2023)An Investigation of Geometric Semantic GP with Linear ScalingProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference10.1145/3583131.3590418(1165-1174)Online publication date: 15-Jul-2023
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media