skip to main content
10.1145/3583131.3590461acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Dynamic Depth for Better Generalization in Continued Fraction Regression

Published:12 July 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

A continued fraction expansion represents a real number as an expression obtained by iteratively extracting the largest whole number from its fractional part and inverting the remainder.

Continued Fraction Regression (CFR) is a method for approximating unknown target functions from data. The key idea is representing the target function as an analytic continued fraction expansion. This is achieved through an optimization approach, which searches the set of possible fractions to find the best approximating fraction for the given data. This research investigates the relationship between truncated fraction depth, accuracy, complexity, and training time in the CFR method for challenging regression problems. Specifically, low-sample synthetic datasets with Gaussian noise are considered, which we use as a proxy for low-sample dynamical systems with underlying models obscured by measurement errors.

We propose and assess the performance of three depth-regulating CFR approaches against six modern symbolic regression methods. We reinforce the strong generalization capacity of the CFR method while reducing model complexity and execution time. Our method achieves the most 1st place rankings in testing against its competitors on 21 Nguyen datasets. It is never worse than 3rd for any dataset while taking at most 4% of the training time of its closest competitor.

References

  1. Ignacio Arnaldo, Krzysztof Krawiec, and Una-May O'Reilly. 2014. Multiple Regression Genetic Programming. In Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (GECCO '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 879--886. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (San Francisco, California, USA) (KDD '16). Association for Computing Machinery, 785--794. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Miles Cranmer. 2020. PySR: Fast & Parallelized Symbolic Regression in Python/Julia. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Rosanna Cretney. 2014. The origins of Euler's early work on continued fractions. Historia Mathematica 41, 2 (May 2014), 139156. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Fabricio Olivetti de Franca and Guilherme Seidyo Imai Aldeia. 2021. Interaction-Transformation Evolutionary Algorithm for Symbolic Regression. Evol Comput 29, 3 (September 2021), 367--390. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Leonhard Euler. 1737. De fractionibus continuis dissertatio. Commentarii academiae scientiarum Petropolitanae 14, 1 (March 1737), 98137. https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/euler-works/71/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Iztok Fajfar, Janez Puhan, and Bundefinedrmen. 2017. Evolving a Nelder-Mead Algorithm for Optimization with Genetic Programming. Evol Comput 25, 3 (September 2017), 351--373. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Andrew N. W. Hone. 2017. Continued fractions for some transcendental numbers. Monatsh Math 182, 1 (Jan 2017), 33--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Maarten Keijzer. 2003. Improving Symbolic Regression with Interval Arithmetic and Linear Scaling. In Genetic Programming (Berlin, Heidelberg). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, New York, NY, USA, 70--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Gabriel Kronberger. 2021. CFR - Continued Fraction Regression. Retrieved Dec 29, 2021 from https://github.com/heal-research/HEAL.CFRGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. William La Cava, Thomas Helmuth, Lee Spector, and Jason H. Moore. 2019. A Probabilistic and Multi-Objective Analysis of Lexicase Selection and -Lexicase Selection. Evol Comput 27, 3 (September 2019), 377--402. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. William La Cava, Patryk Orzechowski, Bogdan Burlacu, Fabricio de Franca, Marco Virgolin, Ying Jin, Michael Kommenda, and Jason Moore. 2021. Contemporary Symbolic Regression Methods and their Relative Performance. In Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks (New Orleans). Curran, 226--236. https://datasets-benchmarks-proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2021/file/c0c7c76d30bd3dcaefc96f40275bdc0a-Paper-round1.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jiayu Liang and Yu Xue. 2020. An Adaptive GP-Based Memetic Algorithm for Symbolic Regression. Applied Intelligence 50, 11 (2020), 3961--3975. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Jiayu Liang and Yu Xue. 2021. Multi-Objective Memetic Algorithms with Tree-Based Genetic Programming and Local Search for Symbolic Regression. Neural Process Lett 53, 3 (2021), 2197--2219. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Lisa Lorentzen and Haakon Waadeland. 2008. Continued Fractions Convergence Theory. Vol. 1. Atlantis Press Paris. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Jiang Lu, Pinghua Gong, Jieping Ye, and Changshui Zhang. 2023. A survey on machine learning from few samples. Pattern Recognition 139, Article 109480 (July 2023). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Greg Martin. 2002. The Unreasonable Effectualness of Continued Function Expansions. (2002). arXiv:math/0206166 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Trent McConaghy. 2011. FFX: Fast, Scalable, Deterministic Symbolic Regression Technology. Springer New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Pablo Moscato. 1989. On Evolution, Search, Optimization, Genetic Algorithms and Martial Arts: Towards Memetic Algorithms. Technical Report. Pasadena, California, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Pablo Moscato, Mohammad Nazmul Haque, and Anna Moscato. 2023 (accepted April 18, 2023). "Continued fractions and the Thomson Problem". Scientific Reports (2023 (accepted April 18, 2023)).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Pablo Moscato, Haoyuan Sun, and Mohammad Nazmul Haque. 2020. Analytic Continued Fractions for Regression: Results on 352 datasets from the physical sciences. In 2020 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC). 18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Pablo Moscato, Haoyuan Sun, and Mohammad Nazmul Haque. 2021. Analytic Continued Fractions for Regression: A Memetic Algorithm Approach. Expert Systems with Applications 179, 1, Article 115018 (October 2021). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Marcus Märtens and Dario Izzo. 2022. Symbolic Regression for Space Applications: Differentiable Cartesian Genetic Programming Powered by Multi-objective Memetic Algorithms. (2022). arXiv:2206.06213 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. John. A. Nelder and Roger Mead. 1965. A Simplex Method for Function Minimization. Comput. J. 7, 4 (April 1965), 308--313. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Ji Ni, Russ H. Drieberg, and Peter I. Rockett. 2012. The Use of an Analytic Quotient Operator in Genetic Programming. In IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE, 146--152. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Carl D. Olds. 1963. Continued fractions. Mathematical Association of America.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Randal S. Olson, William La Cava, Patryk Orzechowski, Ryan J. Urbanowicz, and Jason H. Moore. 2017. PMLB: a large benchmark suite for machine learning evaluation and comparison. BioData Mining 10, 1, Article 36 (Dec 2017). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Fabian Pedregosa, Gaël Varoquauxand Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Olivier Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, Peter Prettenhofer, Ron Weiss, Vincent Dubourg, Jake Vanderplas, Alexandre Passos, David Cournapeau, Matthieu Brucher, Matthieu Perrot, and Édouard Duchesnay. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12, 85 (2011), 2825--2830. http://jmlr.org/papers/v12/pedregosa11a.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Brenden K Petersen, Mikel Landajuela Larma, Terrell N. Mundhenk, Claudio Prata Santiago, Soo Kyung Kim, and Joanne Taery Kim. May 2021. Deep symbolic regression: Recovering mathematical expressions from data via risk-seeking policy gradients. In International Conference on Learning Representations (Vienna, Austria). https://openreview.net/forum?id=m5Qsh0kBQGGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. 2015. U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation. Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention - MICCAI 2015 9351, 1 (2015), 234241. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Aliyu Sani Sambo, R. Muhammad Atif Azad, Yevgeniya Kovalchuk, Vivek Padmanaabhan Indramohan, and Hanifa Shah. 2021. Evolving simple and accurate symbolic regression models via asynchronous parallel computing. Applied Soft Computing 104, 1, Article 107198 (June 2021). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Michael Schmidt and Hod Lipson. 2011. Age-Fitness Pareto Optimization. Springer New York. 129--146 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Haoyuan Sun and Pablo Moscato. 2019. A Memetic Algorithm for Symbolic Regression. In 2019 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC). IEEE, 21672174. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Nguyen Quang Uy, Nguyen Xuan Hoai, Michael O'Neill, R. I. McKay, and Edgar Galván-López. 2010. Semantically-based crossover in genetic programming: application to real-valued symbolic regression. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 12, 2 (July 2010), 91--119. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Dominique van den Bosch. 2018. The application of continued fractions in Christiaan Huygens' planetarium. Master's thesis. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:34d16f38-51f4-4f55-854a-5f317a5e79afGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Marco Virgolin, Tanja Alderliesten, and Peter A. N. Bosman. 2019. Linear Scaling with and within Semantic Backpropagation-Based Genetic Programming for Symbolic Regression. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (Prague, Czech Republic) (GECCO '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1084--1092. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Yaqing Wang, Quanming Yao, James T. Kwok, and Lionel M. Ni. 2021. Generalizing from a Few Examples: A Survey on Few-Shot Learning. ACM Comput. Surv. 53, 3, Article 63 (Jun 2021), 34 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Hengzhe Zhang. 2021. PS-Tree. Retrieved April 2023 from https://github.com/hengzhe-zhang/PS-TreeGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Dynamic Depth for Better Generalization in Continued Fraction Regression

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        GECCO '23: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
        July 2023
        1667 pages
        ISBN:9798400701191
        DOI:10.1145/3583131

        Copyright © 2023 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 12 July 2023

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate1,669of4,410submissions,38%

        Upcoming Conference

        GECCO '24
        Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
        July 14 - 18, 2024
        Melbourne , VIC , Australia
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)51
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader