An Overview of Schema Theory

The purpose of this paper is to give an introduction to the field of Schema Theory written by a mathematician and for mathematicians. In particular, we endeavor to to highlight areas of the field which might be of interest to a mathematician, to point out some related open problems, and to suggest some large-scale projects. Schema theory seeks to give a theoretical justification for the efficacy of the field of genetic algorithms, so readers who have studied genetic algorithms stand to gain the most from this paper. However, nothing beyond basic probability theory is assumed of the reader, and for this reason we write in a fairly informal style. Because the mathematics behind the theorems in schema theory is relatively elementary, we focus more on the motivation and philosophy. Many of these results have been proven elsewhere, so this paper is designed to serve a primarily expository role. We attempt to cast known results in a new light, which makes the suggested future directions natural. This involves devoting a substantial amount of time to the history of the field. We hope that this exposition will entice some mathematicians to do research in this area, that it will serve as a road map for researchers new to the field, and that it will help explain how schema theory developed. Furthermore, we hope that the results collected in this document will serve as a useful reference. Finally, as far as the author knows, the questions raised in the final section are new.Comment: 27 pages. Originally written in 2009 and hosted on my website, I've decided to put it on the arXiv as a more permanent home. The paper is primarily expository, so I don't really know where to submit it, but perhaps one day I will find an appropriate journa

An incremental approach to genetic algorithms based classification

Incremental learning has been widely addressed in the machine learning literature to cope with learning tasks where the learning environment is ever changing or training samples become available over time. However, most research work explores incremental learning with statistical algorithms or neural networks, rather than evolutionary algorithms. The work in this paper employs genetic algorithms (GAs) as basic learning algorithms for incremental learning within one or more classifier agents in a multi-agent environment. Four new approaches with different initialization schemes are proposed. They keep the old solutions and use an “integration” operation to integrate them with new elements to accommodate new attributes, while biased mutation and crossover operations are adopted to further evolve a reinforced solution. The simulation results on benchmark classification data sets show that the proposed approaches can deal with the arrival of new input attributes and integrate them with the original input space. It is also shown that the proposed approaches can be successfully used for incremental learning and improve classification rates as compared to the retraining GA. Possible applications for continuous incremental training and feature selection are also discussed

Incremental multiple objective genetic algorithms

This paper presents a new genetic algorithm approach to multi-objective optimization problemsIncremental Multiple Objective Genetic Algorithms (IMOGA). Different from conventional MOGA methods, it takes each objective into consideration incrementally. The whole evolution is divided into as many phases as the number of objectives, and one more objective is considered in each phase. Each phase is composed of two stages: first, an independent population is evolved to optimize one specific objective; second, the better-performing individuals from the evolved single-objective population and the multi-objective population evolved in the last phase are joined together by the operation of integration. The resulting population then becomes an initial multi-objective population, to which a multi-objective evolution based on the incremented objective set is applied. The experiment results show that, in most problems, the performance of IMOGA is better than that of three other MOGAs, NSGA-II, SPEA and PAES. IMOGA can find more solutions during the same time span, and the quality of solutions is better

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

Metaheuristic design of feedforward neural networks: a review of two decades of research

Over the past two decades, the feedforward neural network (FNN) optimization has been a key interest among the researchers and practitioners of multiple disciplines. The FNN optimization is often viewed from the various perspectives: the optimization of weights, network architecture, activation nodes, learning parameters, learning environment, etc. Researchers adopted such different viewpoints mainly to improve the FNN's generalization ability. The gradient-descent algorithm such as backpropagation has been widely applied to optimize the FNNs. Its success is evident from the FNN's application to numerous real-world problems. However, due to the limitations of the gradient-based optimization methods, the metaheuristic algorithms including the evolutionary algorithms, swarm intelligence, etc., are still being widely explored by the researchers aiming to obtain generalized FNN for a given problem. This article attempts to summarize a broad spectrum of FNN optimization methodologies including conventional and metaheuristic approaches. This article also tries to connect various research directions emerged out of the FNN optimization practices, such as evolving neural network (NN), cooperative coevolution NN, complex-valued NN, deep learning, extreme learning machine, quantum NN, etc. Additionally, it provides interesting research challenges for future research to cope-up with the present information processing era

On linear genetic programming

The thesis is about linear genetic programming (LGP), a machine learning approach that evolves computer programs as sequences of imperative instructions. Two fundamental differences to the more commontree-based variant (TGP) may be identified. These are the graph-based functional structure of linear genetic programs, on the one hand, and the existence of structurally noneffective code, on the other hand.The two major objectives of this work comprise(1) the development of more advanced methods and variation operators to produce better and more compact program solutions and (2) the analysis of general EA/GP phenomena in linear GP, including intron code, neutral variations, and code growth, among others.First, we introduce efficient algorithms for extracting features of the imperative and functional structure of linear genetic programs.In doing so, especially the detection and elimination of noneffective code during runtime will turn out as a powerful tool to accelerate the time-consuming step of fitness evaluation in GP.Variation operators are discussed systematically for the linear program representation. We will demonstrate that so called effective instruction mutations achieve the best performance in terms of solution quality.These mutations operate only on the (structurally) effective codeand restrict the mutation step size to one instruction.One possibility to further improve their performance is to explicitly increase the probability of neutral variations. As a second, more time-efficient alternative we explicitly controlthe mutation step size on the effective code (effective step size).Minimum steps do not allow more than one effective instruction to change its effectiveness status. That is, only a single node may beconnected to or disconnected from the effective graph component. It is an interesting phenomenon that, to some extent, the effective code becomes more robust against destructions over the generations already implicitly. A special concern of this thesis is to convince the reader that thereare some serious arguments for using a linear representation.In a crossover-based comparison LGP has been found superior to TGPover a set of benchmark problems. Furthermore, linear solutions turned out to be more compact than tree solutions due to (1) multiple usage of subgraph results and (2) implicit parsimony pressure by structurally noneffective code.The phenomenon of code growth is analyzed for different lineargenetic operators. When applying instruction mutations exclusivelyalmost only neutral variations may be held responsible for the emergence and propagation of intron code. It is noteworthy that linear geneticprograms may not grow if all neutral variation effects are rejected and if the variation step size is minimum.For the same reasons effective instruction mutations realize an implicit complexity control in linear GP which reduces a possible negative effect of code growth to a minimum.Another noteworthy result in this context is that program size is strongly increased by crossover while it is hardly influenced by mutation even if step sizes are not explicitly restricted. Finally, we investigate program teams as one possibility to increasethe dimension of genetic programs. It will be demonstrated that muchmore powerful solutions may be found by teams than by individuals. Moreover, the complexity of team solutions remains surprisingly small compared to individual programs. Both is the result of specialization and cooperation of team members

Combinatorial optimization and metaheuristics

Today, combinatorial optimization is one of the youngest and most active areas of discrete mathematics. It is a branch of optimization in applied mathematics and computer science, related to operational research, algorithm theory and computational complexity theory. It sits at the intersection of several fields, including artificial intelligence, mathematics and software engineering. Its increasing interest arises for the fact that a large number of scientific and industrial problems can be formulated as abstract combinatorial optimization problems, through graphs and/or (integer) linear programs. Some of these problems have polynomial-time (“efficient”) algorithms, while most of them are NP-hard, i.e. it is not proved that they can be solved in polynomial-time. Mainly, it means that it is not possible to guarantee that an exact solution to the problem can be found and one has to settle for an approximate solution with known performance guarantees. Indeed, the goal of approximate methods is to find “quickly” (reasonable run-times), with “high” probability, provable “good” solutions (low error from the real optimal solution). In the last 20 years, a new kind of algorithm commonly called metaheuristics have emerged in this class, which basically try to combine heuristics in high level frameworks aimed at efficiently and effectively exploring the search space. This report briefly outlines the components, concepts, advantages and disadvantages of different metaheuristic approaches from a conceptual point of view, in order to analyze their similarities and differences. The two very significant forces of intensification and diversification, that mainly determine the behavior of a metaheuristic, will be pointed out. The report concludes by exploring the importance of hybridization and integration methods

A simple model of unbounded evolutionary versatility as a largest-scale trend in organismal evolution

The idea that there are any large-scale trends in the evolution of biological organisms is highly controversial. It is commonly believed, for example, that there is a large-scale trend in evolution towards increasing complexity, but empirical and theoretical arguments undermine this belief. Natural selection results in organisms that are well adapted to their local environments, but it is not clear how local adaptation can produce a global trend. In this paper, I present a simple computational model, in which local adaptation to a randomly changing environment results in a global trend towards increasing evolutionary versatility. In this model, for evolutionary versatility to increase without bound, the environment must be highly dynamic. The model also shows that unbounded evolutionary versatility implies an accelerating evolutionary pace. I believe that unbounded increase in evolutionary versatility is a large-scale trend in evolution. I discuss some of the testable predictions about organismal evolution that are suggested by the model

Revisiting the Edge of Chaos: Evolving Cellular Automata to Perform Computations

We present results from an experiment similar to one performed by Packard (1988), in which a genetic algorithm is used to evolve cellular automata (CA) to perform a particular computational task. Packard examined the frequency of evolved CA rules as a function of Langton's lambda parameter (Langton, 1990), and interpreted the results of his experiment as giving evidence for the following two hypotheses: (1) CA rules able to perform complex computations are most likely to be found near ``critical'' lambda values, which have been claimed to correlate with a phase transition between ordered and chaotic behavioral regimes for CA; (2) When CA rules are evolved to perform a complex computation, evolution will tend to select rules with lambda values close to the critical values. Our experiment produced very different results, and we suggest that the interpretation of the original results is not correct. We also review and discuss issues related to lambda, dynamical-behavior classes, and computation in CA. The main constructive results of our study are identifying the emergence and competition of computational strategies and analyzing the central role of symmetries in an evolutionary system. In particular, we demonstrate how symmetry breaking can impede the evolution toward higher computational capability.Comment: 38 pages, compressed .ps files (780Kb) available ONLY thru anonymous ftp. (Instructions available via `get 9303003' .