A Field Guide to Genetic Programming

xiv, 233 p. : il. ; 23 cm.Libro ElectrónicoA Field Guide to Genetic Programming (ISBN 978-1-4092-0073-4) is an introduction to genetic programming (GP). GP is a systematic, domain-independent method for getting computers to solve problems automatically starting from a high-level statement of what needs to be done. Using ideas from natural evolution, GP starts from an ooze of random computer programs, and progressively refines them through processes of mutation and sexual recombination, until solutions emerge. All this without the user having to know or specify the form or structure of solutions in advance. GP has generated a plethora of human-competitive results and applications, including novel scientific discoveries and patentable inventions. The authorsIntroduction -- Representation, initialisation and operators in Tree-based GP -- Getting ready to run genetic programming -- Example genetic programming run -- Alternative initialisations and operators in Tree-based GP -- Modular, grammatical and developmental Tree-based GP -- Linear and graph genetic programming -- Probalistic genetic programming -- Multi-objective genetic programming -- Fast and distributed genetic programming -- GP theory and its applications -- Applications -- Troubleshooting GP -- Conclusions.Contents xi 1 Introduction 1.1 Genetic Programming in a Nutshell 1.2 Getting Started 1.3 Prerequisites 1.4 Overview of this Field Guide I Basics 2 Representation, Initialisation and GP 2.1 Representation 2.2 Initialising the Population 2.3 Selection 2.4 Recombination and Mutation Operators in Tree-based 3 Getting Ready to Run Genetic Programming 19 3.1 Step 1: Terminal Set 19 3.2 Step 2: Function Set 20 3.2.1 Closure 21 3.2.2 Sufficiency 23 3.2.3 Evolving Structures other than Programs 23 3.3 Step 3: Fitness Function 24 3.4 Step 4: GP Parameters 26 3.5 Step 5: Termination and solution designation 27 4 Example Genetic Programming Run 4.1 Preparatory Steps 29 4.2 Step-by-Step Sample Run 31 4.2.1 Initialisation 31 4.2.2 Fitness Evaluation Selection, Crossover and Mutation Termination and Solution Designation Advanced Genetic Programming 5 Alternative Initialisations and Operators in 5.1 Constructing the Initial Population 5.1.1 Uniform Initialisation 5.1.2 Initialisation may Affect Bloat 5.1.3 Seeding 5.2 GP Mutation 5.2.1 Is Mutation Necessary? 5.2.2 Mutation Cookbook 5.3 GP Crossover 5.4 Other Techniques 32 5.5 Tree-based GP 39 6 Modular, Grammatical and Developmental Tree-based GP 47 6.1 Evolving Modular and Hierarchical Structures 47 6.1.1 Automatically Defined Functions 48 6.1.2 Program Architecture and Architecture-Altering 50 6.2 Constraining Structures 51 6.2.1 Enforcing Particular Structures 52 6.2.2 Strongly Typed GP 52 6.2.3 Grammar-based Constraints 53 6.2.4 Constraints and Bias 55 6.3 Developmental Genetic Programming 57 6.4 Strongly Typed Autoconstructive GP with PushGP 59 7 Linear and Graph Genetic Programming 61 7.1 Linear Genetic Programming 61 7.1.1 Motivations 61 7.1.2 Linear GP Representations 62 7.1.3 Linear GP Operators 64 7.2 Graph-Based Genetic Programming 65 7.2.1 Parallel Distributed GP (PDGP) 65 7.2.2 PADO 67 7.2.3 Cartesian GP 67 7.2.4 Evolving Parallel Programs using Indirect Encodings 68 8 Probabilistic Genetic Programming 8.1 Estimation of Distribution Algorithms 69 8.2 Pure EDA GP 71 8.3 Mixing Grammars and Probabilities 74 9 Multi-objective Genetic Programming 75 9.1 Combining Multiple Objectives into a Scalar Fitness Function 75 9.2 Keeping the Objectives Separate 76 9.2.1 Multi-objective Bloat and Complexity Control 77 9.2.2 Other Objectives 78 9.2.3 Non-Pareto Criteria 80 9.3 Multiple Objectives via Dynamic and Staged Fitness Functions 80 9.4 Multi-objective Optimisation via Operator Bias 81 10 Fast and Distributed Genetic Programming 83 10.1 Reducing Fitness Evaluations/Increasing their Effectiveness 83 10.2 Reducing Cost of Fitness with Caches 86 10.3 Parallel and Distributed GP are Not Equivalent 88 10.4 Running GP on Parallel Hardware 89 10.4.1 Master–slave GP 89 10.4.2 GP Running on GPUs 90 10.4.3 GP on FPGAs 92 10.4.4 Sub-machine-code GP 93 10.5 Geographically Distributed GP 93 11 GP Theory and its Applications 97 11.1 Mathematical Models 98 11.2 Search Spaces 99 11.3 Bloat 101 11.3.1 Bloat in Theory 101 11.3.2 Bloat Control in Practice 104 III Practical Genetic Programming 12 Applications 12.1 Where GP has Done Well 12.2 Curve Fitting, Data Modelling and Symbolic Regression 12.3 Human Competitive Results – the Humies 12.4 Image and Signal Processing 12.5 Financial Trading, Time Series, and Economic Modelling 12.6 Industrial Process Control 12.7 Medicine, Biology and Bioinformatics 12.8 GP to Create Searchers and Solvers – Hyper-heuristics xiii 12.9 Entertainment and Computer Games 127 12.10The Arts 127 12.11Compression 128 13 Troubleshooting GP 13.1 Is there a Bug in the Code? 13.2 Can you Trust your Results? 13.3 There are No Silver Bullets 13.4 Small Changes can have Big Effects 13.5 Big Changes can have No Effect 13.6 Study your Populations 13.7 Encourage Diversity 13.8 Embrace Approximation 13.9 Control Bloat 13.10 Checkpoint Results 13.11 Report Well 13.12 Convince your Customers 14 Conclusions Tricks of the Trade A Resources A.1 Key Books A.2 Key Journals A.3 Key International Meetings A.4 GP Implementations A.5 On-Line Resources 145 B TinyGP 151 B.1 Overview of TinyGP 151 B.2 Input Data Files for TinyGP 153 B.3 Source Code 154 B.4 Compiling and Running TinyGP 162 Bibliography 167 Inde

Systems Biology Markup Language (SBML) Level 2: Structures and Facilities for Model Definitions

With the rise of Systems Biology as a new paradigm for understanding biological processes, the development of quantitative models is no longer restricted to a small circle of theoreticians. The dramatic increase in the number of these models precipitates the need to exchange and reuse both existing and newly created models. The Systems Biology Markup Language (SBML) is a free, open, XML-based format for representing quantitative models of biological interest that advocates the consistent specification of such models and thus facilitates both software development and model exchange.

Principally oriented towards describing systems of biochemical reactions, such as cell signalling pathways, metabolic networks and gene regulation etc., SBML can also be used to encode any kinetic model. SBML offers mechanisms to describe biological components by means of compartments and reacting species, as well as their dynamic behaviour, using reactions, events and arbitrary mathematical rules. SBML also offers all the housekeeping structures needed to ensure an unambiguous understanding of quantitative descriptions.

This is Release 1 of the specification for SBML Level 2 Version 4, describing the structures of the language and the rules used to build a valid model. SBML XML Schema and other related documents and software are also available from the SBML project web site, "http://sbml.org/":http://sbml.org/

Investigations of cellular automata-based stream ciphers

In this thesis paper, we survey the literature arising from Stephan Wolfram\u27s original paper, “Cryptography with Cellular Automata” [WOL86] that first suggested stream ciphers could be constructed with cellular automata. All published research directly and indirectly quoting this paper are summarized up until the present. We also present a novel stream cipher design called Sum4 that is shown to have good randomness properties and resistance to approximation using linear finite shift registers. Sum4 is further studied to determine its effective strength with respect to key size given that an attack with a SAT solver is more efficient than a bruteforce attack. Lastly, we give ideas for further research into improving the Sum4 cipher

Self learning neuro-fuzzy modeling using hybrid genetic probabilistic approach for engine air/fuel ratio prediction

Machine Learning is concerned in constructing models which can learn and make predictions based on data. Rule extraction from real world data that are usually tainted with noise, ambiguity, and uncertainty, automatically requires feature selection. Neuro-Fuzzy system (NFS) which is known with its prediction performance has the difficulty in determining the proper number of rules and the number of membership functions for each rule. An enhanced hybrid Genetic Algorithm based Fuzzy Bayesian classifier (GA-FBC) was proposed to help the NFS in the rule extraction. Feature selection was performed in the rule level overcoming the problems of the FBC which depends on the frequency of the features leading to ignore the patterns of small classes. As dealing with a real world problem such as the Air/Fuel Ratio (AFR) prediction, a multi-objective problem is adopted. The GA-FBC uses mutual information entropy, which considers the relevance between feature attributes and class attributes. A fitness function is proposed to deal with multi-objective problem without weight using a new composition method. The model was compared to other learning algorithms for NFS such as Fuzzy c-means (FCM) and grid partition algorithm. Predictive accuracy and the complexity of the Fuzzy Rule Base System (FRBS) including number of rules and number of terms in each rule were taken as terms of evaluation. It was also compared to the original GA-FBC depending on the frequency not on Mutual Information (MI). Experimental results using Air/Fuel Ratio (AFR) data sets show that the new model participates in decreasing the average number of attributes in the rule and sometimes in increasing the average performance compared to other models. This work facilitates in achieving a self-generating FRBS from real data. The GA-FBC can be used as a new direction in machine learning research. This research contributes in controlling automobile emissions in helping the reduction of one of the most causes of pollution to produce greener environment

Sequence and structural analysis of antibodies

The work presented in this thesis focusses on the sequence and structural analysis of antibodies and has fallen into three main areas. First I developed a method to assess how typical an antibody sequence is of the expressed human antibody repertoire. My hypothesis was that the more \humanlike" an antibody sequence is (in other words how typical it is of the expressed human repertoire), the less likely it is to elicit an immune response when used in vivo in humans. In practice, I found that, while the most and least-human sequences generated the lowest and highest anti-antibody reponses in the small available dataset, there was little correlation in between these extremes. Second, I examined the distribution of the packing angles between VH and VL domains of antibodies and whether residues in the interface in uence the packing angle angle. This is an important factor which has essentially been ignored in modelling antibody structures since the packing angle can have a signi�cant e�ect on the topography of the combining site. Finding out which interface residues have the greatest in uence is also important in protocols for `humanizing' mouse antibodies to make them more suitable for use in therapy in humans. Third, I developed a method to apply standard Kabat or Chothia numbering schemes to an antibody sequence automatically. In brief, the method uses pro�les to identify the ends of the framework regions and then �lls in the numbers for each section. Benchmarking the performance of this algorithm against annotations in the Kabat database highlighted several errors in the manual annotations in the Kabat database. Based on structural analysis of insertions and deletions in the framework regions of antibodies, I have extended the Chothia numbering scheme to identify the structurally correct positions of insertions and deletions in the framework regions

Automated Feature Engineering for Deep Neural Networks with Genetic Programming

Feature engineering is a process that augments the feature vector of a machine learning model with calculated values that are designed to enhance the accuracy of a model’s predictions. Research has shown that the accuracy of models such as deep neural networks, support vector machines, and tree/forest-based algorithms sometimes benefit from feature engineering. Expressions that combine one or more of the original features usually create these engineered features. The choice of the exact structure of an engineered feature is dependent on the type of machine learning model in use. Previous research demonstrated that various model families benefit from different types of engineered feature. Random forests, gradient-boosting machines, or other tree-based models might not see the same accuracy gain that an engineered feature allowed neural networks, generalized linear models, or other dot-product based models to achieve on the same data set. This dissertation presents a genetic programming-based algorithm that automatically engineers features that increase the accuracy of deep neural networks for some data sets. For a genetic programming algorithm to be effective, it must prioritize the search space and efficiently evaluate what it finds. This dissertation algorithm faced a potential search space composed of all possible mathematical combinations of the original feature vector. Five experiments were designed to guide the search process to efficiently evolve good engineered features. The result of this dissertation is an automated feature engineering (AFE) algorithm that is computationally efficient, even though a neural network is used to evaluate each candidate feature. This approach gave the algorithm a greater opportunity to specifically target deep neural networks in its search for engineered features that improve accuracy. Finally, a sixth experiment empirically demonstrated the degree to which this algorithm improved the accuracy of neural networks on data sets augmented by the algorithm’s engineered features

Geometric Semantic Genetic Programming

Traditional Genetic Programming (GP) searches the space of functions/programs by using search operators that manipulate their syntactic representation, regardless of their actual semantics/behaviour. Recently, semantically aware search operators have been shown to outperform purely syntactic operators. In this work, using a formal geometric view on search operators and representations, we bring the semantic approach to its extreme consequences and introduce a novel form of GP – Geometric Semantic GP (GSGP) – that searches directly the space of the underlying semantics of the programs. This perspective provides new insights on the relation between program syntax and semantics, search operators and fitness landscape, and allows for principled formal design of semantic search operators for different classes of problems. We de- rive specific forms of GSGP for a number of classic GP domains and experimentally demonstrate their superiority to conventional operators

Geometric Semantic Genetic Programming

Traditional Genetic Programming (GP) searches the space of functions/programs by using search operators that manipulate their syntactic representation, regardless of their actual semantics/behaviour. Recently, semantically aware search operators have been shown to outperform purely syntactic operators. In this work, using a formal geometric view on search operators and representations, we bring the semantic approach to its extreme consequences and introduce a novel form of GP – Geometric Semantic GP (GSGP) – that searches directly the space of the underlying semantics of the programs. This perspective provides new insights on the relation between program syntax and semantics, search operators and fitness landscape, and allows for principled formal design of semantic search operators for different classes of problems. We de- rive specific forms of GSGP for a number of classic GP domains and experimentally demonstrate their superiority to conventional operators