Lexicase selection promotes effective search and behavioural diversity of solutions in Linear Genetic Programming
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Linear Genetic Programming (LGP) is an evolutionary algorithm aimed at solving computational problems, most common problem types being symbolic regression and classification. The standard method for selecting the parent individuals that get to undergo modification at each generation of the algorithm is tournament selection, which operates based on an aggregate fitness value computed on the whole training dataset. Lexicase selection, a novel parent selection method introduced by Lee Spector and his research group, works differently by randomly ordering the samples in the training dataset and using each of them in turn to eliminate parent candidates from consideration. As a result it allows for selecting specialist individuals, which perform well on some samples but badly on others, instead of generalist individuals whose average performance on all of the samples is good. Lexicase selection has previously been tested on tree-GP and PushGP, but not on LGP. In this study, we use three different benchmark problems to compare its performance to tournament selection, investigating the mean best fitness values of the test runs at each generation, as well as the effect of the parent selection operator on behavioural diversity. We conclude that lexicase selection drives the search towards good solutions more effectively than tournament selection, and that this effect correlates with improved behavioural diversity in most cases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it