The Effects of Randomly Sampled Training Data on Program Evolution
Created by W.Langdon from
gp-bibliography.bib Revision:1.8051
- @InProceedings{BRoss:2000:GECCO,
-
author = "Brian J. Ross",
-
title = "The Effects of Randomly Sampled Training Data on
Program Evolution",
-
pages = "443--450",
-
year = "2000",
-
publisher = "Morgan Kaufmann",
-
booktitle = "Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary
Computation Conference (GECCO-2000)",
-
editor = "Darrell Whitley and David Goldberg and
Erick Cantu-Paz and Lee Spector and Ian Parmee and Hans-Georg Beyer",
-
address = "Las Vegas, Nevada, USA",
-
publisher_address = "San Francisco, CA 94104, USA",
-
month = "10-12 " # jul,
-
keywords = "genetic algorithms, genetic programming, grammar,
stochastic regular expressions",
-
ISBN = "1-55860-708-0",
-
URL = "http://gpbib.cs.ucl.ac.uk/gecco2000/GP003.pdf",
-
URL = "http://gpbib.cs.ucl.ac.uk/gecco2000/GP003.ps",
-
URL = "http://www.cosc.brocku.ca/~bross/research/gp003.ps",
-
URL = "http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/303412.html",
-
size = "8 pages",
-
abstract = "The effects of randomly sampled training data on
genetic programming performance is empirically
investigated. Often the most natural, if not only,
means of characterising the target behaviour for a
problem is to randomly sample training cases inherent
to that problem. A natural question to raise about this
strategy is, how deleterious is the randomly sampling
of training data to evolution performance? Will
sampling reduce the evolutionary search to hill
climbing? Can re-sampling during the run be
advantageous? We address these questions by undertaking
a suite of different GP experiments. Parameters include
various sampling strategies (single, re-sampling, ideal
samples), generational and steady-state evolution, and
non-evolutionary strategies such as hill climbing and
random search. The experiments confirm that random
sampling effectively characterizes stochastic domains
during genetic programming, provided that a
sufficiently representative sample is used. An
unexpected result is that genetic programming may
perform worse than random search when the sampled
training sets are exceptionally poor. We conjecture
that poor training sets cause evolution to prematurely
converge to undesirable optima, which irrevocably
handicaps the population's diversity and viability.",
-
notes = "pop=750/500 (culled), gens=50. p448 'higher quality
training evolved better quality solutions'. p448 L1 GP
better than hill climbing and random search (not true
on L2).
A joint meeting of the ninth International Conference
on Genetic Algorithms (ICGA-2000) and the fifth Annual
Genetic Programming Conference (GP-2000) Part of
\cite{whitley:2000:GECCO}
See also \cite{oai:CiteSeerPSU:250158}",
- }
Genetic Programming entries for
Brian J Ross
Citations