The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Solving Uncompromising Problems With Lexicase Selection
Abstract
We describe a broad class of problems, called “uncompromising problems,” which are characterized by the requirement that solutions must perform optimally on each of many test cases. Many of the problems that have long motivated genetic programming research, including the automation of many traditional programming tasks, are uncompromising. We describe and analyze the recently proposed “lexicase” parent selection algorithm and show that it can facilitate the solution of uncompromising problems by genetic programming. Unlike most traditional parent selection techniques, lexicase selection does not base selection on a fitness value that is aggregated over all test cases; rather, it considers test cases one at a time in random order. We present results comparing lexicase selection to more traditional parent selection methods, including standard tournament selection and implicit fitness sharing, on four uncompromising problems: 1) finding terms in finite algebras; 2) designing digital multipliers; 3) counting words in files; and 4) performing symbolic regression of the factorial function. We provide evidence that lexicase selection maintains higher levels of population diversity than other selection methods, which may partially explain its utility as a parent selection algorithm in the context of uncompromising problems.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“This approach, which aims to preserve diversity55,56, is related to Lexicase57 in that both approaches consider a set of test cases for scoring an individual, and it is related to fitness uniform optimization58, which also clusters individuals on the basis of their fitness value; however, we sample the clusters on the basis of their score instead of uniformly, as detailed next.”
From Mathematical discoveries from program search with large language models (2024) · cites this paper as [57]
Citations
Cites
A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II
Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., & Meyarivan, T. (2002) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/4235.996017 · Cited by 50,053
No free lunch theorems for optimization
Wolpert, D. H., & Macready, W. G. (1997) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/4235.585893 · Cited by 14,237
Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection
Koza, J. R. (1992) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 13,082
SPEA2: Improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm
Zitzler, E., Laumanns, M., & Thiele, L. (2001) · doi:10.3929/ethz-a-004284029 · Cited by 5,099
Genetic algorithms with sharing for multimodal function optimization
Goldberg, D. E., & Richardson, J. T. (1987) · international conference on Genetic algorithms · Cited by 1,891
GenProg: A Generic Method for Automatic Software Repair
Goues, C. L., Nguyen, T. H., Forrest, S., & Weimer, W. R. (2011) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2011.104 · Cited by 1,084
Genetic Programming and Autoconstructive Evolution with the Push Programming Language
Spector, L. C., & Robinson, A. (2002) · Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines · doi:10.1023/a:1014538503543 · Cited by 277
Self-citationGenetic programming needs better benchmarks
McDermott, J., White, D. R., Luke, S., Manzoni, L., Castelli, M., Vanneschi, L., Jaśkowski, W., Krawiec, K., Harper, R., Jong, K. A. D., et al. (2012) · Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO) · doi:10.1145/2330163.2330273 · Cited by 274
Better GP benchmarks: community survey results and proposals
White, D. R., McDermott, J., Castelli, M., Manzoni, L., Goldman, B. W., Kronberger, G., Jaśkowski, W., O’Reilly, U.-M., & Luke, S. (2012) · Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines · doi:10.1007/s10710-012-9177-2 · Cited by 235
Optimizing Existing Software With Genetic Programming
Langdon, W. B., & Harman, M. (2014) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/tevc.2013.2281544 · Cited by 234
Pareto-Front Exploitation in Symbolic Regression
Smits, G. F., & Kotanchek, M. E. (2006) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/0-387-23254-0_17 · Cited by 226
The Push3 execution stack and the evolution of control
Spector, L. C., Klein, J., & Keijzer, M. (2005) · Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO) · doi:10.1145/1068009.1068292 · Cited by 164
Self-citationSpector, L. C. (2012) · Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion (GECCO Companion) · doi:10.1145/2330784.2330846 · Cited by 158
Self-citationThe Automatic Acquisition, Evolution and Reuse of Modules in Cartesian Genetic Programming
Walker, J. A., & Miller, J. F. (2008) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/tevc.2007.903549 · Cited by 146
Autoconstructive Evolution: Push, PushGP, and Pushpop
Spector, L. C. (2001) · Cited by 80
Self-citationFitness sharing in genetic programming
McKay, B. (2000) · Cited by 74
Population Diversity in an Immune System Model: Implications for Genetic Search
Smith, R. E., Forrest, S., & Perelson, A. S. (1993) · Foundations of genetic algorithms · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-094832-4.50016-7 · Cited by 67
Noble, J., & Watson, R. A. R. (2001) · ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) · Cited by 62
Genetic programming for finite algebras
Spector, L. C., Clark, D. M., Lindsay, I., et al. (2008) · Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO) · doi:10.1145/1389095.1389343 · Cited by 62
Self-citationData Structures and Genetic Programming
(1996) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1109.003.0026 · Cited by 55
Promoting Phenotypic Diversity in Genetic Programming
Jackson, D. (2010) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15871-1_48 · Cited by 50
Learning Recursive Functions with Object Oriented Genetic Programming
Agapitos, A., & Lucas, S. M. (2006) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11729976_15 · Cited by 37
Tag-based modules in genetic programming
Spector, L. C., Martin, B., Harrington, K., et al. (2011) · Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO) · doi:10.1145/2001576.2001767 · Cited by 36
Self-citationIs the perfect the enemy of the good
Luke, S., & Panait, L. (2002) · Cited by 30
Uniform Linear Transformation with Repair and Alternation in Genetic Programming
Spector, L. C., & Helmuth, T. (2014) · Genetic and evolutionary computation · doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-0375-7_8 · Cited by 22
Self-citationEvolving Data Structures with Genetic Programming
Langdon, W. B. (1995) · Cited by 22
Optimising Existing Software with Genetic Programming
Langdon, W., & Harman, M. (2013) · UCL Discovery (University College London) · Cited by 20
Genetic Programming with Historically Assessed Hardness
Klein, J., & Spector, L. C. (2008) · Genetic and evolutionary computation · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-87623-8_5 · Cited by 16
Self-citationUsing Co-solvability to Model and Exploit Synergetic Effects in Evolution
Krawiec, K., & Lichocki, P. (2010) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15871-1_50 · Cited by 14
Evolving a digital multiplier with the pushgp genetic programming system
Helmuth, T., & Spector, L. C. (2013) · Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion (GECCO Companion) · doi:10.1145/2464576.2466814 · Cited by 14
Self-citationWord count as a traditional programming benchmark problem for genetic programming
Helmuth, T., & Spector, L. C. (2014) · Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO) · doi:10.1145/2576768.2598230 · Cited by 13
Self-citationStarosta, S., & Nomura, H. (1986) · doi:10.3115/991365.991400 · Cited by 11
Implicit Fitness Sharing for Evolutionary Synthesis of License Plate Detectors
Krawiec, K., & Nawrocki, M. (2013) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-37192-9_38 · Cited by 6
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- luke, 2009, Essentials of Metaheuristics
- mckenzie, 1987, Algebras Lattices and Varieties, 1
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mathematical discoveries from program search with large language models
Romera-Paredes, B., Barekatain, M., Novikov, A., Balog, M., Kumar, M. P., Dupont, E., Ruiz, F. J. R., Ellenberg, J. S., Wang, P., Fawzi, O., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06924-6 · Cited by 544
“This approach, which aims to preserve diversity 55,56 , is related to Lexicase 57 in that both approaches consider a set of test cases for scoring an individual, and it is related to fitness uniform optimization 58 , which also clusters individuals on the basis of their fitness value; however, we…”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Helmuth, T., Spector, L., & Matheson, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
- Hampshire College (US)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation
- Published
- 2015-10
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 630-643
- ISSN
- 1089-778X (ISSN-L)
- 1941-0026
- OpenAlex
- W2072473332
- Cited by
- 195
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 18.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1017817, 1129139, 1331283)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
- Keywords
- lexicase selection, parent selection, genetic programming, tournament selection, population diversity, multi-objective optimization, symbolic regression, digital multiplier design, finite algebras, factorial function
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review