Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Semantically Driven Mutation in Genetic Programming

By Lawrence Beadle and Colin G. Johnson


Using semantic analysis, we present a technique known as semantically driven mutation which can explicitly detect and apply behavioural changes caused by the syntactic changes in programs that result from the mutation operation. Using semantically driven mutation, we demonstrate increased performance in genetic programming on seven benchmark genetic programming problems over two different domains

Topics: QA76
Publisher: IEEE Press
Year: 2009
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (2008). A field guide to genetic programming. Published via and freely available at,
  2. (1998). A revised comparison of crossover and mutation in genetic programming,”
  3. (2004). An Analysis of Diversity in Genetic Programming. doi
  4. (2002). An analysis of the causes of code growth
  5. (1996). An investigation into the sensitivity of genetic programming to the frequency of leaf selection during subtree crossover,”
  6. (1999). Analysis of genetic diversity through population history,”
  7. (2000). Code growth is not caused by introns,”
  8. (2007). Context-aware mutation: a modular, context aware mutation operator for genetic programming,” doi
  9. (1998). Cudd: CU Decision Diagram Package release.” fabio/CUDD/,
  10. Efficient genetic programming based on binary decision diagrams,” doi
  11. Epoch X - Genetic Programming Analysis Software.”
  12. (1993). Evolving a sort: Lessons in genetic programming,” doi
  13. (2005). Evolving binary decision diagrams using implicit neutrality,” doi
  14. (1995). Explicitly defined introns and destructive crossover in genetic programming,”
  15. (1994). Fitness landscapes and difficulty in genetic programming,” doi
  16. (2002). Foundations of Genetic Programming. doi
  17. (1992). Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. doi
  18. (1986). Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation,” doi
  19. (1995). Implicit manipulation of polynomials using zero-suppressed bdds,” in EDTC ’95: doi
  20. (2003). Modification point depth and genome growth in genetic programming,” doi
  21. (2006). On the limiting distribution of program sizes in tree-based genetic programming,” doi
  22. (2008). Semantic building blocks in genetic programming,” doi
  23. (2008). Semantically driven crossover in genetic programming,” doi
  24. (1998). The evolution of size in variable length representations,” in doi
  25. (1995). Using a tree structured genetic algorithm to perform symbolic regression,” doi
  26. (1996). Why might some problems be difficult for genetic programming to find solutions?,”

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.