Balancing Learning and Overfitting in Genetic Programming with Interleaved Sampling of Training Data

  • Ivo Gonçalves
  • Sara Silva
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7831)

Abstract

Generalization is the ability of a model to perform well on cases not seen during the training phase. In Genetic Programming generalization has recently been recognized as an important open issue, and increased efforts are being made towards evolving models that do not overfit. In this work we expand on recent developments that showed that using a small and frequently changing subset of the training data is effective in reducing overfitting and improving generalization. Particularly, we build upon the idea of randomly choosing a single training instance at each generation and balance it with periodically using all training data. The motivation for this approach is based on trying to keep overfitting low (represented by using a single training instance) and still presenting enough information so that a general pattern can be found (represented by using all training data). We propose two approaches called interleaved sampling and random interleaved sampling that respectively represent doing this balancing in a deterministic or a probabilistic way. Experiments are conducted on three high-dimensional real-life datasets on the pharmacokinetics domain. Results show that most of the variants of the proposed approaches are able to consistently improve generalization and reduce overfitting when compared to standard Genetic Programming. The best variants are even able of such improvements on a dataset where a recent and representative state-of-the-art method could not. Furthermore, the resulting models are short and hence easier to interpret, an important achievement from the applications’ point of view.

Keywords

Genetic Programming Overfitting Generalization Pharmacokinetics Drug Discovery 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Archetti, F., Lanzeni, S., Messina, E., Vanneschi, L.: Genetic programming for computational pharmacokinetics in drug discovery and development. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 8(4), 413–432 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gathercole, C., Ross, P.: Dynamic Training Subset Selection for Supervised Learning in Genetic Programming. In: Davidor, Y., Männer, R., Schwefel, H.-P. (eds.) PPSN 1994. LNCS, vol. 866, pp. 312–321. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gonçalves, I., Silva, S.: Experiments on controlling overfitting in genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the 15th Portuguese Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Progress in Artificial Intelligence, EPIA 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    Kennedy, T.: Managing the drug discovery/development interface. Drug Discovery Today 2(10), 436–444 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kola, I., Landis, J.: Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3(8), 711–716 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koza, J.R.: Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection (Complex Adaptive Systems), 1st edn. The MIT Press (1992)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koza, J.R.: Human-competitive results produced by genetic programming. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 11(3-4), 251–284 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kushchu, I.: An evaluation of evolutionary generalisation in genetic programming. Artif. Intell. Rev. 18, 3–14 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Langdon, W.B.: Minimising testing in genetic programming. Tech. Rep. RN/11/10, Computer Science, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu, Y., Khoshgoftaar, T.: Reducing overfitting in genetic programming models for software quality classification. In: Proceedings of the Eighth IEEE International Conference on High Assurance Systems Engineering, HASE 2004, pp. 56–65. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    O’Neill, M., Vanneschi, L., Gustafson, S., Banzhaf, W.: Open issues in genetic programming. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 11, 339–363 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Poli, R., Langdon, W.B., McPhee, N.F.: A field guide to genetic programming (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Silva, S., Costa, E.: Dynamic limits for bloat control in genetic programming and a review of past and current bloat theories. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 10, 141–179 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Silva, S., Vanneschi, L.: Bloat free genetic programming: Application to human oral bioavailability prediction. International Journal of Data Mining and Bioinformatics 6(6), 585–601 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vanneschi, L., Silva, S.: Using Operator Equalisation for Prediction of Drug Toxicity with Genetic Programming. In: Lopes, L.S., Lau, N., Mariano, P., Rocha, L.M. (eds.) EPIA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5816, pp. 65–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivo Gonçalves
    • 1
  • Sara Silva
    • 2
    • 1
  1. 1.CISUC, Department of Informatics EngineeringUniversity of CoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.INESC-ID Lisboa, ISTTechnical University of LisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations