Jose Guadalupe Hernandez

Shakiba Shahbandegan, Jose Guadalupe Hernandez, Emily Dolson

Many-objective optimization has been a field of interest over the past two decades and several evolutionary optimization algorithms have been introduced to tackle these problems; yet two fundamental questions remain underexplored: (i) What happens when the number of objectives grows beyond the typical many-objective regime of about fifteen and becomes massive? (ii) How do problem characteristics, such as the nature of interactions between objectives, influence algorithmic performance? To answer these questions we employ a diagnostic benchmark suite that allows control over problem characteristics and can be scaled to extremely high objective counts. Using this framework we evaluate several state-of-the-art evolutionary algorithms including NSGA-II, NSGA-III, MOEA/D and lexicase selection across a range of dimensionalities and diagnostic problem landscapes. Our experiments reveal that problem characteristics significantly affect algorithm performance. In particular, the nature of interactions between objectives appears important. These results highlight the importance of understanding these properties before selecting an algorithm for a specific problem. We also show that lexicase selection, an algorithm originally designed for genetic programming, compares favorably with state-of-the-art many-objective optimization algorithms while avoiding the dependence on predefined reference directions.

Anil K. Saini, Jose Guadalupe Hernandez, Emily F. Wong et al.

Machine learning models trained on real-world data may inadvertently make biased predictions that negatively impact marginalized communities. Reweighting is a method that can mitigate such bias in model predictions by assigning a weight to each data point used during model training. In this paper, we compare three methods for generating these weights: (1) evolving them using a Genetic Algorithm (GA), (2) computing them using only dataset characteristics, and (3) assigning equal weights to all data points. Model performance under each strategy was evaluated using paired predictive and fairness metrics, which also served as optimization objectives for the GA during evolution. Specifically, we used two predictive metrics (accuracy and area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve) and two fairness metrics (demographic parity difference and subgroup false negative fairness). Using experiments on eleven publicly available datasets (including two medical datasets), we show that evolved sample weights can produce models that achieve better trade-offs between fairness and predictive performance than alternative weighting methods. However, the magnitude of these benefits depends strongly on the choice of optimization objectives. Our experiments reveal that optimizing with accuracy and demographic parity difference metrics yields the largest number of datasets for which evolved weights are significantly better than other weighting strategies in optimizing both objectives.

Jose Guadalupe Hernandez, Attri Ghosh, Philip J. Freda et al.

We present the Star-Based Automated Single-locus and Epistasis analysis tool - Genetic Programming (StarBASE-GP), an automated framework for discovering meaningful genetic variants associated with phenotypic variation in large-scale genomic datasets. StarBASE-GP uses a genetic programming-based multi-objective optimization strategy to evolve machine learning pipelines that simultaneously maximize explanatory power (r2) and minimize pipeline complexity. Biological domain knowledge is integrated at multiple stages, including the use of nine inheritance encoding strategies to model deviations from additivity, a custom linkage disequilibrium pruning node that minimizes redundancy among features, and a dynamic variant recommendation system that prioritizes informative candidates for pipeline inclusion. We evaluate StarBASE-GP on a cohort of Rattus norvegicus (brown rat) to identify variants associated with body mass index, benchmarking its performance against a random baseline and a biologically naive version of the tool. StarBASE-GP consistently evolves Pareto fronts with superior performance, yielding higher accuracy in identifying both ground truth and novel quantitative trait loci, highlighting relevant targets for future validation. By incorporating evolutionary search and relevant biological theory into a flexible automated machine learning framework, StarBASE-GP demonstrates robust potential for advancing variant discovery in complex traits.

Jose Guadalupe Hernandez, Alexander Lalejini, Emily Dolson

It is generally accepted that "diversity" is associated with success in evolutionary algorithms. However, diversity is a broad concept that can be measured and defined in a multitude of ways. To date, most evolutionary computation research has measured diversity using the richness and/or evenness of a particular genotypic or phenotypic property. While these metrics are informative, we hypothesize that other diversity metrics are more strongly predictive of success. Phylogenetic diversity metrics are a class of metrics popularly used in biology, which take into account the evolutionary history of a population. Here, we investigate the extent to which 1) these metrics provide different information than those traditionally used in evolutionary computation, and 2) these metrics better predict the long-term success of a run of evolutionary computation. We find that, in most cases, phylogenetic metrics behave meaningfully differently from other diversity metrics. Moreover, our results suggest that phylogenetic diversity is indeed a better predictor of success.

Jose Guadalupe Hernandez, Alexander Lalejini, Charles Ofria

Parent selection algorithms (selection schemes) steer populations through a problem's search space, often trading off between exploitation and exploration. Understanding how selection schemes affect exploitation and exploration within a search space is crucial to tackling increasingly challenging problems. Here, we introduce an "exploration diagnostic" that diagnoses a selection scheme's capacity for search space exploration. We use our exploration diagnostic to investigate the exploratory capacity of lexicase selection and several of its variants: epsilon lexicase, down-sampled lexicase, cohort lexicase, and novelty-lexicase. We verify that lexicase selection out-explores tournament selection, and we show that lexicase selection's exploratory capacity can be sensitive to the ratio between population size and the number of test cases used for evaluating candidate solutions. Additionally, we find that relaxing lexicase's elitism with epsilon lexicase can further improve exploration. Both down-sampling and cohort lexicase -- two techniques for applying random subsampling to test cases -- degrade lexicase's exploratory capacity; however, we find that cohort partitioning better preserves lexicase's exploratory capacity than down-sampling. Finally, we find evidence that novelty-lexicase's addition of novelty test cases can degrade lexicase's capacity for exploration. Overall, our findings provide hypotheses for further exploration and actionable insights and recommendations for using lexicase selection. Additionally, this work demonstrates the value of selection scheme diagnostics as a complement to more conventional benchmarking approaches to selection scheme analysis.