Hacker News Reader

Comment by raverbashing | Hacker News Reader

Well, the accrual of "useless code" (there's a name for this that I forgot") is a known problem, but it is also something that stabilizes the learning process

I don't think it's as simple as putting the length of the AST in the goal function (but it's something interesting to try).

Depending on compile speed vs running speed you might be better off interpreting your ASTs

View on HN

It's bloat due to 'introns' (useless statements that don't effect the output, like x = x * 1). And yes, just adding a fitness function to shorten program length isn't optimal. I've found it easier to evolve successful programs (letting the bloat happen) and then keep removing statements from correctly generated programs whilst checking if the output is the same. Probably not optimal either but I feel like it gives better results.

I guess a lot of standard compiler optimisation techniques could be used here -- if you care.

I don't know what that would do to the learning process -- but at least it would be useful for end results.

That's kinda horrifying... Accruing useless code to reduce the probability of mutating the useful code? Sounds like a better regularization strategy is needed.

I'm generally pretty suspicious of generic algorithms; why take a random walk when you can March along the gradient towards a solution?

It might be interesting to try using GA for neural architecture, though, and gradient descent to train the network... (Though it sounds expensive.)

> why take a random walk when you can March along the gradient towards a solution?

Because your problem has no smooth/continuous gradient

Because your problem has a giant search space

Because your problem can do with a "close enough" solution

Try gradient descending a symbolic regression and we'll talk

Reply on news.ycombinator.com