ABSTRACT
Counterexample-driven genetic programming (CDGP) uses specifications provided as formal constraints in order to generate the training cases used to evaluate the evolving programs. It has also been extended to combine formal constraints and user-provided training data to solve symbolic regression problems. Here we show how the ideas underlying CDGP can also be applied using only user-provided training data, without formal specifications. We demonstrate the application of this method, called "informal CDGP," to software synthesis problems.
- Iwo Błądek and Krzysztof Krawiec. 2019. Solving symbolic regression problems with formal constraints. In GECCO '19: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference. ACM, Prague, Czech Republic, 977--984. https://doi.org/ Google ScholarDigital Library
- Iwo Błądek, Krzysztof Krawiec, and Jerry Swan. 2018. Counterexample-Driven Genetic Programming: Heuristic Program Synthesis from Formal Specifications. Evolutionary Computation 26, 3 (Fall 2018), 441--469. https://doi.org/ Google ScholarDigital Library
- Austin J Ferguson, Jose Guadalupe Hernandez, Daniel Junghans, Emily Dolson, and Charles Ofria. 2019. Characterizing the effects of random subsampling on Lexicase selection. In Genetic Programming Theory and Practice XVII, Wolfgang Banzhaf, Erik Goodman, Leigh Sheneman, Leonardo Trujillo, and Bill Worzel (Eds.). East Lansing, MI, USA.Google Scholar
- Thomas Helmuth and Lee Spector. 2015. General Program Synthesis Benchmark Suite. In GECCO '15: Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. ACM, Madrid, Spain, 1039--1046. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Krzysztof Krawiec, Iwo Bladek, and Jerry Swan. 2017. Counterexample-driven Genetic Programming. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO '17). ACM, Berlin, Germany, 953--960. https://doi.org/ Best paper. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Krzysztof Krawiec, Iwo Błądek, Jerry Swan, and John H. Drake. 2018. Counterexample-Driven Genetic Programming: Stochastic Synthesis of Provably Correct Programs. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-18), Jerome Lang (Ed.). International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, Stockholm, 5304--5308. https://doi.org/ Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lee Spector, Jon Klein, and Maarten Keijzer. 2005. The Push3 execution stack and the evolution of control. In GECCO 2005: Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, Vol. 2. ACM Press, Washington DC, USA, 1689--1696. https://doi.org/ Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
Counterexample-driven genetic programming without formal specifications
Recommendations
Counterexample-driven genetic programming
GECCO '17: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation ConferenceGenetic programming is an effective technique for inductive synthesis of programs from training examples of desired input-output behavior (tests). Programs synthesized in this way are not guaranteed to generalize beyond the training set, which is ...
Counterexample-driven genetic programming: Heuristic program synthesis from formal specifications
Conventional genetic programming GP can guarantee only that synthesized programs pass tests given by the provided input-output examples. The alternative to such a test-based approach is synthesizing programs by formal specification, typically realized ...
Counterexample-driven genetic programming: stochastic synthesis of provably correct programs
IJCAI'18: Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial IntelligenceGenetic programming is an effective technique for inductive synthesis of programs from tests, i.e. training examples of desired input-output behavior. Programs synthesized in this way are not guaranteed to generalize beyond the training set, which is ...
Comments