Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 45 references

UGCE: User-Guided Incremental Counterfactual Exploration

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read UGCE reuses and repairs the previously evolved counterfactual population after each user constraint change, so interactive refinement avoids restarting the search.

desk verdict A genuine incremental-counterfactual mechanism with a real runtime win, but the abstract's quality claim is contradicted by the paper's own success-rate numbers on COMPAS and AdultCA. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21330 v1 pith:7MTB7RFX submitted 2025-05-27 cs.LG

Christos Fragkathoulas , Evaggelia Pitoura This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords counterfactualexplanationsgeneticalgorithmsincrementaloptimizationdynamicconstraintswarm-startuser-guidedrefinementfeasibilityexplainableAI
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that counterfactual explanations can be updated across rounds of user constraint changes without restarting the optimization from scratch. The key move is to carry over the already-evolved population, repair only the members that violate the new constraints, and resume the genetic search from that warm-started population. If this is right, interactive tools become practical: users can tighten or loosen feasibility requirements step by step instead of committing to one fixed constraint set. On five benchmark datasets the scheme shows much lower runtime than regeneration, stable performance under different constraint orderings, and better quality than a random reinitialization warm start, though its success rate drops on some datasets such as COMPAS and AdultCA.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the incremental warm-start loop in Algorithm 1: after each user update, line 13 repairs the existing population $P_t$ to satisfy $C_{t+1}$ and continues evolution from that repaired population. Around this loop sits a genetic algorithm, a population-based evolutionary optimizer that keeps a set of candidate counterfactuals and improves them by selection, crossover, and mutation, with a fitness function that jointly rewards a flipped prediction, proximity to the original instance, and sparsity of changed features. The repair operator carries the search state forward across constraint changes, and the comparison against a random reinitialization warm start isolates the contribution of repair.

What would settle it

Run the same incremental loop on constraint sequences where each new set excludes most of the previously feasible counterfactuals, quantified by the fraction of formerly valid solutions that remain valid; if the repaired population's success rate approaches or falls below that of a random reinitialization on such sequences, the warm-start premise fails precisely when the feasible region moves substantially.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

UGCE claims that iterative counterfactual generation under user-driven feasibility changes is best treated as a warm-started evolutionary search. After the user revises the constraint set from $C_t$ to $C_{t+1}$, the algorithm keeps the population $P_t$ already evolved under $C_t$, repairs only the individuals that violate $C_{t+1}$, and resumes the genetic search with that repaired population as the initial gene pool. The paper argues that this repair-don't-restart policy is the load-bearing difference: it consistently beats a warm start that re-samples random individuals and it is far faster than regenerating from scratch, with only a moderate reduction in the fraction of instances for which a feasible counterfactual is found. A secondary claim is that runtime and quality are largely insensitive to the order in which constraint types are introduced, and that individual constraint types differ in difficulty, with directionality constraints being the hardest across datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The efficiency claim rests on the assumption that the population evolved under the old constraints is largely still useful after the constraints change, so repairing the violators preserves enough progress to beat restarting from scratch.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Repeated constraint refinement becomes cheap enough for interactive tools with several rounds of user feedback, since each update resumes from the previous population rather than reinitializing.
  • The order in which users add immutability, range, and directionality constraints has little effect on runtime or quality for this method, per the three orderings tested.
  • Starting from a repaired population rather than fresh random samples is the strategy validated for preserving quality and speed after constraint updates.
  • Constraint types are not interchangeable: directionality constraints lower success rates most, so explanation systems may need type-specific planning.
  • On datasets where the new feasible region overlaps the old one only weakly, such as COMPAS and AdultCA, the incremental success rate falls below 60 percent, marking a boundary of the repair strategy.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial: if the feasible region moves far enough, a natural extension would be to measure the overlap between $F(C_t)$ and $F(C_{t+1})$ and inject fresh diversity only when that overlap is low, rather than always relying on repair alone.
  • Editorial: the reported speedups suggest UGCE could sit behind a slider- or chat-style interface with second-level response times; a user study measuring whether people actually refine constraints more effectively could test this claimed practicality.
  • Editorial: the dataset-dependent failure of directionality constraints could be converted into a design signal, warning the user in advance when a one-sided restriction is unlikely to admit any valid counterfactual.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents UGCE, a genetic-algorithm framework for generating counterfactual explanations when the user's feasibility constraints change over time. The method retains the evolved population from the previous step and repairs individuals that violate the new constraints, then continues the evolutionary search, rather than restarting from scratch. The evaluation compares UGCE-Incremental with UGCE-Baseline (full restart) and DiCE on five datasets, reporting runtime, number of generations, success rate (the percentage of negatively classified instances for which a valid counterfactual is found), proximity, and sparsity. The central claim is that incremental warm-starting substantially reduces runtime while maintaining solution quality.

Significance. If the runtime figures in Table II hold, UGCE-Incremental shows a real and practically useful efficiency gain over a restart baseline on all five datasets, with low variance relative to DiCE. The paper's main strength is that these are measured runtimes over a concrete implementation with code made available, and the comparison includes a state-of-the-art static method (DiCE). There is no circularity: the efficiency result is an empirical comparison of measured runtimes, not a consequence of fitting. The central paired claim is not yet established, however: on COMPAS and AdultCA the incremental success rate falls to 47.9% and 57.4%, respectively, so the positive result should be framed as an efficiency-coverage tradeoff unless additional evidence or a quality budget is provided.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section IV-B; Table II] The abstract's claim that UGCE 'maintains high-quality solutions' is not supported by Table II. On COMPAS, UGCE-Incremental finds valid counterfactuals for 47.86% of instances versus 93.11% for UGCE-Baseline; on AdultCA the corresponding figures are 57.35% versus 99.99%. Section IV-B describes these as 'slightly lower success rates,' but a drop of 45 and 43 percentage points means that the incremental method fails to produce any valid counterfactual for roughly half (COMPAS) and 43% (AdultCA) of the explained instances. Since a speedup is of little use when no valid counterfactual is returned, the paper must either add an explicit quality/coverage budget with a Pareto analysis of runtime against CF(%) or revise the central claim to describe an efficiency-coverage tradeoff.
  2. [Table IV vs Table II] The reported success rates for UGCE-Incremental are inconsistent across the two tables. Table II lists CF(%) of 95.36, 92.43, and 57.35 for German Credit, HELOC, and AdultCA under UGCE-Incremental, while Table IV, which also attributes results to UGCE-Incremental, lists 98.81, 99.46, and 99.99 for those datasets under every ordering. The protocols appear to differ (Table II uses only immutability constraints; Table IV uses three-step sequences of all constraint types), but this is not explained. The two tables cannot both describe the same method without a concrete reconciliation; otherwise the reader cannot tell which success-rate figure represents the incremental algorithm.
  3. [Section IV-C; Table III] Section IV-C states that the violator-fixing strategy 'consistently outperforms' the random-restart alternative in counterfactual success rate. Table III contradicts this on AdultCA: Fix achieves 57.35% CFs versus 57.48% for Random, and the reported p-value is 5.2e-1, so the random strategy is slightly better and the difference is not significant. The same holds on HELOC, where the p-value is 7.5e-1. The text should be changed to say the fixing strategy gives statistically significant improvements on German Credit, COMPAS, and Adult, and is statistically equivalent on HELOC and AdultCA. The efficiency advantage of fixing remains supported.
  4. [Algorithm 1; Section III-B] The central mechanism, line 13 of Algorithm 1 ('Repair Pt to satisfy Ct+1'), is not defined. There is no description of how each constraint type (immutability, range, directionality) is enforced during repair, how invalid individuals are modified, what happens when the repaired population is empty or has no diversity, what convergence/early-stopping criterion is used, or what GA hyperparameters (population size, crossover and mutation rates, number of generations) are used beyond the claim that they follow DiCE. Without these details, the runtime and CF(%) results are tied to an underspecified implementation, and the claimed dominance of the repair-based warm start cannot be independently reproduced or attributed to the method rather than to particular parameter choices.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II, Problem 1] The dynamic problem statement lists only feasibility and label-flip conditions and omits the cost-minimization objective that appears in the static formulation; please add the objective for the updated constraint set.
  2. [Table II, AdultCA row] The entry '1 .12' is not formatted like the other CFs(%) entries; clarify whether this is 1.12% and note that only one run is reported.
  3. [Table I and Table II] Table II and Table I report different instance counts for HELOC, COMPAS, and Adult (365 vs 368, 505 vs 550, 2,049 vs 2,063); please define exactly which instances are included in each experiment.
  4. [Section IV-C] The notation 'CFEs %' is used in Section IV-C while Section IV-B uses 'CFs (%)'; standardize the notation.
  5. [Section V] The sentence 'Ramsey and Grefenstette [30] says' should be 'state'; also the phrase 'and section VII presents' in the introduction is inconsistent with the actual section numbering, where Section VI is Summary and Section VII is Future Directions.
  6. [Data availability] The code availability footnote references 'Project Repository' without a working URL in the visible text; please include the actual link.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the efficiency claim is empirically measured against baselines, and no fitted parameter or self-citation is load-bearing.

full rationale

UGCE's central claim is an empirical engineering result: runtime and counterfactual success are measured by running UGCE-Baseline, UGCE-Incremental, and DiCE on benchmark datasets, and by comparing the violator-fixing warm start against a random warm start (Tables II and III). The warm-start strategy is not defined in terms of the outcome it is said to produce; Table III directly tests repair versus random reinitialization. The fitness function (Eq. 1) does optimize proximity, sparsity, and label flip, and Table II reports the same proximity and sparsity quantities, but this is ordinary objective-based evaluation rather than a fitted parameter being relabeled as a prediction. Hyperparameters are adopted from DiCE rather than fitted to the reported results. The only self-citation is reference [12], a survey citation in the related-work discussion, and it is not load-bearing for the paper's contribution. The low CF% success rates on COMPAS (47.86%) and AdultCA (57.35%) in Table II are substantive quality concerns, but they are not circularity. No circular step can be exhibited that satisfies the quote-and-reduction requirement.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or mathematical entities are postulated; UGCE is an algorithmic framework composed of existing GA components. The framework itself is not an invented entity in the sense of a new postulated object.

free parameters (4)
  • Fitness weights lambda_1, lambda_2, lambda_3 = 0.2, 0.2, 1.0
    Adopted from DiCE [16], not fitted to UGCE data, but hand-chosen and no sensitivity analysis is provided; they control the trade-off in Eq. (1).
  • Prediction reward and penalty alpha, beta = 1, 1
    Hand-set binary rewards in Eq. (1); no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • epsilon, sparsity threshold = not reported
    Used in the indicator function in Eq. (1) to count significantly changed features; the value used in experiments is not given.
  • GA hyperparameters (population size, crossover and mutation rates, generations) = not reported
    Required to re-implement the algorithm exactly; the paper only mentions convergence or early stopping.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption At most one constraint is active per feature at any time.
    Stated in Section II to avoid conflicting specifications; it simplifies repair but is an assumption about user behavior.
  • domain assumption Repairing violators in the old population is sufficient to make warm-start efficient.
    Underpins Algorithm 1 line 13; empirically contradicted partially on COMPAS and AdultCA.
  • domain assumption Random forest classifiers in the experiments are representative black-box models for counterfactual explanation.
    All evaluations use random forest; results may not transfer to other model classes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of UGCE: User-Guided Incremental Counterfactual Exploration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7MTB7RFX

@misc{pith2026250521330,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: UGCE: User-Guided Incremental Counterfactual Exploration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7MTB7RFX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21330}
}
read the original abstract

Counterfactual explanations (CFEs) are a popular approach for interpreting machine learning predictions by identifying minimal feature changes that alter model outputs. However, in real-world settings, users often refine feasibility constraints over time, requiring counterfactual generation to adapt dynamically. Existing methods fail to support such iterative updates, instead recomputing explanations from scratch with each change, an inefficient and rigid approach. We propose User-Guided Incremental Counterfactual Exploration (UGCE), a genetic algorithm-based framework that incrementally updates counterfactuals in response to evolving user constraints. Experimental results across five benchmark datasets demonstrate that UGCE significantly improves computational efficiency while maintaining high-quality solutions compared to a static, non-incremental approach. Our evaluation further shows that UGCE supports stable performance under varying constraint sequences, benefits from an efficient warm-start strategy, and reveals how different constraint types may affect search behavior.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21330 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. UGCE Pipeline A. Framework Overview UGCE operates through a sequence of user-in-the-loop optimization rounds. At each round t, a counterfactual x ′(t) is generated given the current constraint set Ct, and presented to the user. If the user accepts the counterfactual, the process terminates. Otherwise, the user modifies the constraint set (e.g., adds a directionality constraint), forming Ct+1. The algorithm then cont… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Siddiqi, Credit risk scorecards: developing and implementing intel- ligent credit scoring

    N. Siddiqi, Credit risk scorecards: developing and implementing intel- ligent credit scoring . John Wiley & Sons, 2012, vol. 3

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Grade: Machine learning support for graduate admissions,

    A. Waters and R. Miikkulainen, “Grade: Machine learning support for graduate admissions,” Ai Magazine, 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Psychology meets machine learning: Interdisciplinary perspectives on algorithmic job candidate screening,

    C. C. Liem, M. Langer, A. Demetriou, A. M. Hiemstra, A. Sukma Wicaksana, M. P. Born, and C. J. K ¨onig, “Psychology meets machine learning: Interdisciplinary perspectives on algorithmic job candidate screening,” Explainable and interpretable models in computer vision and machine learning , 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    The mythos of model interpretability: In machine learning, the concept of interpretability is both important and slippery

    Z. C. Lipton, “The mythos of model interpretability: In machine learning, the concept of interpretability is both important and slippery.” Queue, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Explainable artificial intelligence (xai): Concepts, taxonomies, oppor- tunities and challenges toward responsible ai,

    A. B. Arrieta, N. D ´ıaz-Rodr´ıguez, J. Del Ser, A. Bennetot, S. Tabik, A. Barbado, S. Garc ´ıa, S. Gil-L ´opez, D. Molina, R. Benjamins et al. , “Explainable artificial intelligence (xai): Concepts, taxonomies, oppor- tunities and challenges toward responsible ai,” Information fusion, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    Molnar, Interpretable machine learning

    C. Molnar, Interpretable machine learning . Lulu. com, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Counterfactual explanations and algorithmic recourses for machine learning: A review,

    S. Verma, V . Boonsanong, M. Hoang, K. Hines, J. Dickerson, and C. Shah, “Counterfactual explanations and algorithmic recourses for machine learning: A review,” CSUR, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Benchmarking and survey of explanation methods for black box models,

    F. Bodria, F. Giannotti, R. Guidotti, F. Naretto, D. Pedreschi, and S. Rinzivillo, “Benchmarking and survey of explanation methods for black box models,” Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery , 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Explainable ai (xai): Core ideas, techniques, and solutions,

    R. Dwivedi, D. Dave, H. Naik, S. Singhal, R. Omer, P. Patel, B. Qian, Z. Wen, T. Shah, G. Morgan et al. , “Explainable ai (xai): Core ideas, techniques, and solutions,” CSUR, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Peeking inside the black-box: a survey on explainable artificial intelligence (xai),

    A. Adadi and M. Berrada, “Peeking inside the black-box: a survey on explainable artificial intelligence (xai),” IEEE access, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Counterfactual explanations and how to find them: litera- ture review and benchmarking,

    R. Guidotti, “Counterfactual explanations and how to find them: litera- ture review and benchmarking,” DMKD, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    On explaining unfairness: An overview,

    C. Fragkathoulas, V . Papanikou, D. P. Karidi, and E. Pitoura, “On explaining unfairness: An overview,” in 2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW) , 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    A survey on graph counterfactual explanations: definitions, methods, evaluation, and research challenges,

    M. A. Prado-Romero, B. Prenkaj, G. Stilo, and F. Giannotti, “A survey on graph counterfactual explanations: definitions, methods, evaluation, and research challenges,” CSUR, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the gdpr,

    S. Wachter, B. Mittelstadt, and C. Russell, “Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the gdpr,” Harv. JL & Tech., 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Face: feasible and actionable counterfactual explanations,

    R. Poyiadzi, K. Sokol, R. Santos-Rodriguez, T. De Bie, and P. Flach, “Face: feasible and actionable counterfactual explanations,” in AIES@AAAI/ACM, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Explaining machine learning classifiers through diverse counterfactual explanations,

    Mothilal et al., “Explaining machine learning classifiers through diverse counterfactual explanations,” in FAT*, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Dece: Decision explorer with counter- factual explanations for machine learning models,

    F. Cheng, Y . Ming, and H. Qu, “Dece: Decision explorer with counter- factual explanations for machine learning models,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Vice: Visual counterfac- tual explanations for machine learning models,

    O. Gomez, S. Holter, J. Yuan, and E. Bertini, “Vice: Visual counterfac- tual explanations for machine learning models,” in IUI, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Gam coach: Towards interactive and user-centered algorithmic recourse,

    Z. J. Wang, J. Wortman Vaughan, R. Caruana, and D. H. Chau, “Gam coach: Towards interactive and user-centered algorithmic recourse,” in CHI, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Polyjuice: Generating counterfactuals for explaining, evaluating, and improving models,

    T. Wu, M. T. Ribeiro, J. Heer, and D. S. Weld, “Polyjuice: Generating counterfactuals for explaining, evaluating, and improving models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00288, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    The what-if tool: Interactive probing of machine learning models,

    J. Wexler, M. Pushkarna, T. Bolukbasi, M. Wattenberg, F. Vi ´egas, and J. Wilson, “The what-if tool: Interactive probing of machine learning models,” IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics , 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Interacting with predictions: Visual inspection of black-box machine learning models,

    J. Krause, A. Perer, and K. Ng, “Interacting with predictions: Visual inspection of black-box machine learning models,” in CHI, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Nonstationary function optimization using genetic algorithm with dominance and diploidy,

    D. E. Goldberg and R. E. Smith, “Nonstationary function optimization using genetic algorithm with dominance and diploidy,” inProceedings of the Second International Conference on Genetic Algorithms on Genetic algorithms and their application , 1987

    1987

  16. [24]

    H. G. Cobb, An investigation into the use of hypermutation as an adap- tive operator in genetic algorithms having continuous, time-dependent nonstationary environments. Citeseer, 1990

    1990

  17. [25]

    Genetic algorithms for changing environments,

    J. J. Grefenstette et al., “Genetic algorithms for changing environments,” in Ppsn, 1992

    1992

  18. [26]

    A comparative study of steady state and generational genetic algorithms for use in nonstationary environments,

    F. Vavak and T. C. Fogarty, “A comparative study of steady state and generational genetic algorithms for use in nonstationary environments,” in AISB workshop on Evolutionary Computing , 1996

    1996

  19. [27]

    Memory enhanced evolutionary algorithms for changing optimization problems,

    J. Branke, “Memory enhanced evolutionary algorithms for changing optimization problems,” in Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evo- lutionary Computation-CEC99 (Cat. No. 99TH8406) , 1999

    1999

  20. [28]

    Genetic algorithms for open shop scheduling and re-scheduling,

    S. J. Louis and Z. Xu, “Genetic algorithms for open shop scheduling and re-scheduling,” in Proc. of the 11th ISCA Int. Conf. on Computers and their Applications , 1996

    1996

  21. [29]

    Adaptation to changing environ- ments by means of the memory based thermodynamical genetic algo- rithm,

    N. Mori, H. Kita, and Y . Nishikawa, “Adaptation to changing environ- ments by means of the memory based thermodynamical genetic algo- rithm,” Transactions of the Institute of Systems, Control and Information Engineers, 2001

    2001

  22. [30]

    Case-based initialization of genetic algorithms

    C. L. Ramsey and J. J. Grefenstette, “Case-based initialization of genetic algorithms.” in ICGA, 1993

    1993

  23. [31]

    Memory-based immigrants for genetic algorithms in dynamic environments,

    S. Yang, “Memory-based immigrants for genetic algorithms in dynamic environments,” in Proceedings of the 7th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation , 2005

    2005

  24. [32]

    Factual and counterfactual explanations for black box decision making,

    R. Guidotti, A. Monreale, F. Giannotti, D. Pedreschi, S. Ruggieri, and F. Turini, “Factual and counterfactual explanations for black box decision making,” IEEE Intelligent Systems , 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Certifai: A common framework to provide explanations and analyse the fairness and robustness of black- box models,

    S. Sharma, J. Henderson, and J. Ghosh, “Certifai: A common framework to provide explanations and analyse the fairness and robustness of black- box models,” in AIES@AAAI/ACM, 2020, pp. 166–172

    2020

  26. [34]

    Dace: Distribution-aware counterfactual explanation by mixed-integer linear optimization

    K. Kanamori, T. Takagi, K. Kobayashi, and H. Arimura, “Dace: Distribution-aware counterfactual explanation by mixed-integer linear optimization.” in IJCAI, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Actionable recourse in linear classification,

    B. Ustun, A. Spangher, and Y . Liu, “Actionable recourse in linear classification,” in FAT*, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Precof: counterfactual expla- nations for fairness,

    S. Goethals, D. Martens, and T. Calders, “Precof: counterfactual expla- nations for fairness,” Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Efficient search for diverse coherent explanations,

    C. Russell, “Efficient search for diverse coherent explanations,” in Pro- ceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Gen- erating robust counterfactual explanations,

    V . Guyomard, F. Fessant, T. Guyet, T. Bouadi, and A. Termier, “Gen- erating robust counterfactual explanations,” in ECML-PKDD, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Designing evolutionary algorithms for dy- namic optimization problems,

    J. Branke and H. Schmeck, “Designing evolutionary algorithms for dy- namic optimization problems,” in Advances in evolutionary computing: theory and applications . Springer, 2003

    2003

  32. [40]

    Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelli- gence

    J. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelli- gence. University of Michigan Press, 1975

    1975

  33. [41]

    An algorithm for finding best matches in logarithmic expected time,

    J. H. Friedman, J. L. Bentley, and R. A. Finkel, “An algorithm for finding best matches in logarithmic expected time,” ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS) , 1977

    1977

  34. [42]

    Reducing bias and inefficiency in the selection algorithm,

    J. E. Baker et al. , “Reducing bias and inefficiency in the selection algorithm,” in Proceedings of the second international conference on genetic algorithms, 1987

    1987

  35. [43]

    Determining best practices for using genetic algorithms in molecular discovery,

    B. L. Greenstein, D. C. Elsey, and G. R. Hutchison, “Determining best practices for using genetic algorithms in molecular discovery,” The Journal of Chemical Physics , 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    A genetic algorithm for the automated generation of small organic molecules: drug design using an evolutionary algorithm,

    D. Douguet, E. Thoreau, and G. Grassy, “A genetic algorithm for the automated generation of small organic molecules: drug design using an evolutionary algorithm,” Journal of computer-aided molecular design , 2000

    2000

  37. [45]

    Effect of the genetic algorithm parameters on the optimisation of heterogeneous catalysts,

    S. R. Pereira, F. Clerc, D. Farrusseng, J. C. Van der Waal, T. Maschmeyer, and C. Mirodatos, “Effect of the genetic algorithm parameters on the optimisation of heterogeneous catalysts,” QSAR & Combinatorial Science, 2005

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.