Surrogate Fitness via Factorization of Interaction Matrix

  • Paweł LiskowskiEmail author
  • Krzysztof Krawiec
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9594)


We propose SFIMX, a method that reduces the number of required interactions between programs and tests in genetic programming. SFIMX performs factorization of the matrix of the outcomes of interactions between the programs in a working population and the tests. Crucially, that factorization is applied to matrix that is only partially filled with interaction outcomes, i.e., sparse. The reconstructed approximate interaction matrix is then used to calculate the fitness of programs. In empirical comparison to several reference methods in categorical domains, SFIMX attains higher success rate of synthesizing correct programs within a given computational budget.


Genetic programming Test-based problem Recommender systems Machine learning Surrogate fitness 



P. Liskowski acknowledges support from grant 2014/15/N/ST6/04572 funded by the National Science Centre, Poland.

K. Krawiec acknowledges support from grant 2014/15/B/ST6/05205 funded by the National Science Centre, Poland.


  1. 1.
    Berry, M.W., Browne, M., Langville, A.N., Pauca, V.P., Plemmons, R.J.: Algorithms and applications for approximate nonnegative matrix factorization. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 52(1), 155–173 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bucci, A., Pollack, J.B., de Jong, E.: Automated extraction of problem structure. In: Deb, K., Tari, Z. (eds.) GECCO 2004. LNCS, vol. 3102, pp. 501–512. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chong, S.Y., Tino, P., Ku, D.C., Xin, Y.: Improving generalization performance in co-evolutionary learning. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 16(1), 70–85 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clark, D.M.: Evolution of algebraic terms 1: term to term operation continuity. Int. J. Algebra Comput. 23(05), 1175–1205 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Jong, E.D., Pollack, J.B.: Ideal evaluation from coevolution. Evol. Comput. 12(2), 159–192 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gonçalves, I., Silva, S., Melo, J.B., Carreiras, J.M.B.: Random sampling technique for overfitting control in genetic programming. In: Moraglio, A., Silva, S., Krawiec, K., Machado, P., Cotta, C. (eds.) EuroGP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7244, pp. 218–229. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Helmuth, T., Spector, L., Matheson, J.: Solving uncompromising problems with lexicase selection. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 19(5), 630–643 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hildebrandt, T., Branke, J.: On using surrogates with genetic programming. Evol. Comput. 23(3), 343–367 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hollander, M., Wolfe, D.A., Chicken, E.: Nonparametric Statistical Methods, vol. 751. Wiley, New York (2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jin, Y., Olhofer, M., Sendhoff, B.: A framework for evolutionary optimization with approximate fitness functions. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6, 481–494 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kanji, G.K.: 100 Statistical Tests. Sage, London (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koren, Y., Bell, R., Volinsky, C.: Matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems. Computer 8, 30–37 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koza, J.R.: Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krawiec, K.: Behavioral Program Synthesis with Genetic Programming. Springer, Switzerland (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krawiec, K., Liskowski, P.: Automatic derivation of search objectives for test-based genetic programming. In: Machado, P., Heywood, M.I., McDermott, J., Castelli, M., García-Sánchez, S., Sim, K. (eds.) EuroGP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9025, pp. 53–65. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krawiec, K., O’Reilly, U.: Behavioral programming: a broader and more detailed take on semantic GP. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pp. 935–942. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krawiec, K., Solar-Lezama, A.: Improving genetic programming with behavioral consistency measure. In: Bartz-Beielstein, T., Branke, J., Filipič, B., Smith, J. (eds.) PPSN 2014. LNCS, vol. 8672, pp. 434–443. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee, D.D., Seung, H.S.: Algorithms for non-negative matrix factorization. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 556–562 (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liskowski, P., Krawiec, K.: Discovery of implicit objectives by compression of interaction matrix in test-based problems. In: Bartz-Beielstein, T., Branke, J., Filipič, B., Smith, J. (eds.) PPSN 2014. LNCS, vol. 8672, pp. 611–620. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mao, Y., Saul, L.K.: Modeling distances in large-scale networks by matrix factorization. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement, pp. 278–287. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McKay, R.I.B.: Committee learning of partial functions in fitness-shared genetic programming. In: 26th Annual Conference of the IEEE Third Asia-Pacific Conference on Simulated Evolution and Learning 2000, Industrial Electronics Society, IECON, 22–28 October 2000, vol. 4, pp. 2861–2866. IEEE Press, Nagoya, Japan (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McKay, R.I.B.: Fitness sharing in genetic programming. In: Whitley, D., Goldberg, D., Cantu-Paz, E., Spector, L., Parmee, I., Beyer, H.G. (eds.) Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO-2000), 10–12 July 2000, pp. 435–442. Morgan Kaufmann, Las Vegas (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moraglio, A., Krawiec, K.: Semantic genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the Companion Publication of the 2015 on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, pp. 603–627. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moraglio, A., Krawiec, K., Johnson, C.G.: Geometric semantic genetic programming. In: Coello, C.A.C., Cutello, V., Deb, K., Forrest, S., Nicosia, G., Pavone, M. (eds.) PPSN 2012, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7491, pp. 21–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paatero, P., Tapper, U.: Positive matrix factorization: a non-negative factor model with optimal utilization of error estimates of data values. Environmetrics 5(2), 111–126 (1994)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smith, R.E., Forrest, S., Perelson, A.S.: Searching for diverse, cooperative populations with genetic algorithms. Evol. Comput. 1(2), 127–149 (1993)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Spector, L., Clark, D.M., Lindsay, I., Barr, B., Klein, J.: Genetic programming for finite algebras. In: Keijzer, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO 2008, 12–16 July 2008, pp. 1291–1298. ACM, Atlanta (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Computing SciencePoznan University of TechnologyPoznańPoland

Personalised recommendations