Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is genetic programming still actively researched?

news.ycombinator.com

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is genetic programming still actively researched?

#21
post #4

I'm a non-expert here but it seems intuitive to me that directly moving towards an improved model via linear regression is more efficient than randomly changing your model and then running a natural selection simulation to improve fitness.

But how do you know you’re in the right area? You could be linearly improving a really terrible solution, whereas random chance could take you somewhere completely new and better.

I have no research to back this up, but I'd expect that the more unknown and unpredictable your problem and search space are, the bigger the benefit of an evolutionary approach.

But it's never going to be efficient; it's inherently incredibly inefficient. It only really makes sense when no other method will work.

Re: Ask HN: Is genetic programming still actively researched?

#22

Yes it is going on. I wound up having to write a new python GP library from scratch due to DEAP license being gpl3. Now I’m translating that to Rust. One point of order: don’t only try stuff randomly. Also try trying stuff in shortlex order. Also, make sure you use hyperparameter optimization on the outside of the GP evolution process or else you’ll wind up with too many parameters to hand-tune. I think the link betw…

I would take a look at pymoo library which has a good enough API for using in for applied problems I’ve run into in my research. It’s also surprisingly flexible to extend / subclass for any needs you need as well.

Re: Ask HN: Is genetic programming still actively researched?

#23

The genetic programming scene kind of evolved into NEAT, HyperNEAT and ES-HyperNEAT as a meta learning concept. Connections between layers/nodes are serialized as genes of agents with phenotypes and dominant/recessive markers, and an observing CPPN learns to categorize agents into different traits to find more efficient breeding mechanisms. It's a strong concept, and AFAIK it's still used a lot in the robotics world…

[deleted]

Re: Ask HN: Is genetic programming still actively researched?

#25
post #17
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t actually surprise me that hybrid genetic/memetic approaches outcompete purely genetic approaches: after all, hybrid genetic/memetic humans have outcompeted purely genetic species at every level.

Not every level

May I take this opportunity to recommend Phase IV https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070531/

Re: Ask HN: Is genetic programming still actively researched?

#26

The genetic programming scene kind of evolved into NEAT, HyperNEAT and ES-HyperNEAT as a meta learning concept. Connections between layers/nodes are serialized as genes of agents with phenotypes and dominant/recessive markers, and an observing CPPN learns to categorize agents into different traits to find more efficient breeding mechanisms. It's a strong concept, and AFAIK it's still used a lot in the robotics world…

NEAT and neuroevolution in general are interesting approaches. I also suggest to check techniques like DENSER [1] that can be used to evolve deep networks (by using the evolutionary part on the network structure and not on the weights).

Genetic Programming (GP), however, has not evolved to NEAT (which itself is not very recent, being published in 2002) but simply neuroevolution has become one of the topics that are part of evolutionary computation (EC). For example, one of the largest yearly conferences on evolutionary computation (GECCO) [2] was just last month with both neuroevolution and GP tracks. It is however true that the success of neural techniques had an effect on the community, some effects are the discussion of the role of EC and, for example, more space given to hybrid works (see, for example, the joint track on evolutionary machine learning [3] inside the evostar event).

Related to the original post, a place where some recent research on GP can be found are the proceedings of GECCO (GP track), EuroGP (part of evostar), PPSN (Parallel Problem Solving from Nature), and IEEE CEC (IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation) and journals like Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machine (GPEM), Swarm and Evolutionary Computation (SWEVO), and IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE TEVC). The list is not exhaustive, but those are some well-known venues.

For a less "daunting" starting point, some recent techniques are being added to the SRBench benchmark suite [4], with links to both the code and the paper describing the technique.

[1] Assunção, F., Lourenço, N., Machado, P., & Ribeiro, B. (2019, March). Fast denser: Efficient deep neuroevolution. In european conference on genetic programming (pp. 197-212). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

[2] https://gecco-2023.sigevo.org/HomePage

[3] https://www.evostar.org/2024/eml/

[4] https://github.com/cavalab/srbench

Re: Ask HN: Is genetic programming still actively researched?

#27
post #4

I'm a non-expert here but it seems intuitive to me that directly moving towards an improved model via linear regression is more efficient than randomly changing your model and then running a natural selection simulation to improve fitness.

Also not an expert but I can imagine that models with a lot of binary and/or non-linear variables will work much better with genetic algorithms. In other words, genetic algorithms are strictly more powerful than linear regression.
Post reply on HN