Problem-solving benefits of down-sampled lexicase selection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In genetic programming, an evolutionary method for producing computer programs that solve specified computational problems, parent selection is ordinarily based on aggregate measures of performance across an entire training set. Lexicase selection, by contrast, selects on the basis of performance on random sequences of training cases; this has been shown to enhance problem-solving power in many circumstances. Lexicase selection can also be seen as better reflecting biological evolution, by modeling sequences of challenges that organisms face over their lifetimes. Recent work has demonstrated that the advantages of lexicase selection can be amplified by down-sampling, meaning that only a random subsample of the training cases is used each generation. This can be seen as modeling the fact that individual organisms encounter only subsets of the possible environments, and that environments change over time. Here we provide the most extensive benchmarking of down-sampled lexicase selection to date, showing that its benefits hold up to increased scrutiny. The reasons that down-sampling helps, however, are not yet fully understood. Hypotheses include that down-sampling allows for more generations to be processed with the same budget of program evaluations; that the variation of training data across generations acts as a changing environment, encouraging adaptation; or that it reduces overfitting, leading to more general solutions. We systematically evaluate these hypotheses, finding evidence against all three, and instead draw the conclusion that down-sampled lexicase selection's main benefit stems from the fact that it allows the evolutionary process to examine more individuals within the same computational budget, even though each individual is examined less completely.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jun 2021.
Builds on
7 of 54 references.
References · 7
- 2015Illuminating search spaces by mapping elitescited by 406
- 2018An Alternative View: When Does SGD Escape Local Minima?cited by 115
- 2017Quality and Diversity Optimization: A Unifying Modular Frameworkcited by 111
- 2016Using Centroidal Voronoi Tessellations to Scale Up the Multi-dimensional Archive of Phenotypic Elites Algorithmcited by 65
- 2019Autonomous skill discovery with Quality-Diversity and Unsupervised Descriptorscited by 57
- 2018Where are we now? A large benchmark study of recent symbolic regression methodscited by 44
- 2019Lexicase selection in Learning Classifier Systemscited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 0; 2023: 4; 2024: 2; 2025: 1.
8 papers.
- 2023Fully Autonomous Programming with Large Language Modelscited by 31
- 2021Choose Your Programming Copilot: A Comparison of the Program Synthesis Performance of GitHub Copilot and Genetic Programmingcited by 24
- 2023Probabilistic Lexicase Selectioncited by 3
- 2023Particularitycited by 3
- 2024DALex: Lexicase-like Selection via Diverse Aggregationcited by 3
- 2025Fully Autonomous Programming using Iterative Multi-Agent Debugging with Large Language Modelscited by 3
- 2023HOTGP -- Higher-Order Typed Genetic Programmingcited by 0
- 2024Generational Computation Reduction in Informal Counterexample-Driven Genetic Programmingcited by 0
- 2025Fully Autonomous Programming using Iterative Multi-Agent Debugging with Large Language Models10 Mar 2025
- 2024Generational Computation Reduction in Informal Counterexample-Driven Genetic Programming8 Aug 2024
- 2024DALex: Lexicase-like Selection via Diverse Aggregation23 Jan 2024
- 2023Particularity12 Jun 2023
- 2023Probabilistic Lexicase Selection19 May 2023
- 2023Fully Autonomous Programming with Large Language Models20 Apr 2023
- 2023HOTGP -- Higher-Order Typed Genetic Programming6 Apr 2023
- 2021Choose Your Programming Copilot: A Comparison of the Program Synthesis Performance of GitHub Copilot and Genetic Programming15 Nov 2021