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

Contributions to the Construction of Extensible Semantic Editors

This dissertation addresses the need for easier construction and extension of language tools. Specifically, the construction and extension of so-called semantic editors is considered, that is, editors providing semantic services for code comprehension and manipulation. Editors like these are typically found in state-of-the-art development environments, where they have been developed by hand. The list of programming languages available today is extensive and, with the lively creation of new programming languages and the evolution of old languages, it keeps growing. Many of these languages would benefit from proper tool support. Unfortunately, the development of a semantic editor can be a time-consuming and error-prone endeavor, and too large an effort for most language communities. Given the complex nature of programming, and the huge benefits of good tool support, this lack of tools is problematic. In this dissertation, an attempt is made at narrowing the gap between generative solutions and how state-of-the-art editors are constructed today. A generative alternative for construction of textual semantic editors is explored with focus on how to specify extensible semantic editor services. Specifically, this dissertation shows how semantic services can be specified using a semantic formalism called refer- ence attribute grammars (RAGs), and how these services can be made responsive enough for editing, and be provided also when the text in an editor is erroneous. Results presented in this dissertation have been found useful, both in industry and in academia, suggesting that the explored approach may help to reduce the effort of editor construction

Three pitfalls in Java performance evaluation

The Java programming language has known a remarkable growth over the last decade. This is partially due to the infrastructure required to run Java ap- plications on general purpose microprocessors: a Java virtual machine (VM). The VM ensures that Java applications are portable across different hardware platforms, because it shelters the applications from the underlying system. Hence the motto write once, run (almost) anywhere. Java applications are compiled to an intermediate form, called bytecode, and consist of a number of so-called class files. The virtual machine takes care of class loading, interpreting or compiling the bytecode to the native code of the underlying hardware platform, thread scheduling, garbage collection, etc. As such, during the execution of a Java application, the VM regularly intervenes to take care of housekeeping tasks and to optimise the application as it is executing. Furthermore, the specific implementation details of most virtual machines insert non-deterministic behaviour, not into the semantic part of the execution, but rather into the lower level execution. For example, to bring a Java application up to competitive speed with classical compiled programs written in languages such as C, the virtual machine needs to optimise Java bytecode. To limit the execution overhead, most virtual machines use a time sampling mechanism to determine the hot methods in the application. This introduces non-determinism, as over several runs, the methods are not always optimised at the same moment, nor is the set of optimised methods always the same. Other factors that introduce non-determinism are the thread scheduling, garbage collection, etc. It is readily seen that performance analysis of Java applications is not as simple as it seems at first, and warrants closer inspection. In this dissertation we are mainly interested in the behaviour of Java applications and their performance. In the course of this work, we uncovered three major pitfalls that were not taken into account by researchers when analysing Java performance prior to this work. We will briefly summarise the main achievements presented in this dissertation. The first pitfall we present involves the interaction between the virtual machine, the application and the input to the application. The performance for short running applications is shown to be mainly determined by the virtual machine. For longer running applications, this influence decreases, but remains tangible. We use statistical analysis, such as principal components analysis and cluster analysis (K-means and hierarchical clustering) to demonstrate and clarify the pitfall. By means of a large number of performance char- acteristics measured using hardware performance counters, five virtual machines and fourteen benchmarks with both a small and a large input size, we demonstrate that short running workloads are primarily clustered by virtual machines. Even for long running applications from the SPECjvm98 benchmark suite, the virtual machine still exerts a large influence on the observed behaviour at the microarchitectural level. This work has shown the need for both larger and longer running benchmarks than were available prior to it – this was (partially) met by the introduction of the DaCapo benchmark suite – as well as a careful consideration when setting up an experiment to avoid measuring the virtual machine, rather than the benchmark. Prior to this work, people were quite often using simulation with short running applications (to save time) for exploring Java performance. The second pitfall we uncover involves the analysis of performance numbers. During a survey of 50 papers published at premier conferences, such as OOPSLA, PLDI, CGO, ISMM and VEE, over the past seven years, we found that a variety of approaches are used, both for experimental design – for example, the input size, virtual machines, heap sizes, etc. – and, even more importantly, for data analysis – for example, using a best out of 3 performance number. New techniques are pitted against existing work using these prevalent approaches, and conclusions regarding their successfulness in beating prior state-of-the-art are based upon them. Given the fact that the execution of Java applications usually involves non-determinism in the virtual machine – for example, when determining which methods to optimise – it should come as no surprise that the lack of statistical rigour in these prevalent approaches leads to misleading or even incorrect conclusions. By this we mean that the conclusions are either not representative of what actually happens, or even contradict reality, as modelled in a statistical manner. To circumvent this pitfall, we propose a rigorous statistical approach that uses confidence intervals to both report and compare performance numbers. We also claim that sufficient experiments should be conducted to get a reliable performance measure. The non-determinism caused by the timer-based optimisation component in a virtual machine can be eliminated using so-called replay compilation. This technique will record a compilation plan during a first execution or profiling run of the application. During a second execution, the application is iterated twice: once to compile and optimise all methods found in the compilation plan, and a second time to perform the actual measurement. It turns out however that current practice of using either a single plan – corresponding to the best performing profiling run – or a combined plan choosing the methods that were optimised in, say, more than half the profiling runs, is no match for using multiple plans. The variability observed in the plans themselves is too large to capture in one of the current practices. Consequently, using multiple plans is definitely the better option. Moreover, this allows using a matched-pair approach in the data analysis, which results in tighter confidence intervals for the mean performance number. The third pitfall we examine is the usage of global performance numbers when tuning either an application or a virtual machine. We show that Java applications exhibit phase behaviour at the method level. This means that instances of the same method show more similarity to each other, behaviourwise, than to instances of other methods. A phase can then be identified as a set of sub-trees of the dynamic call-tree, with each sub-tree headed by the same method. We present an two-step algorithm that allows correlating hardware performance counter data in step 2 with the phases determined in step 1. The information obtained can be applied to show the programmer which methods perform worse than average, for example with respect to the number of cache misses they incur. In the dissertation, we pay particular attention to statistical rigour. For each pitfall, we use statistics to demonstrate its presence. Hopefully this work will encourage other researchers to use more rigour in their work as well

Coverage-Based Debloating for Java Bytecode

Software bloat is code that is packaged in an application but is actually not necessary to run the application. The presence of software bloat is an issue for security, for performance, and for maintenance. In this paper, we introduce a novel technique for debloating Java bytecode, which we call coverage-based debloating. We leverage a combination of state-of-the-art Java bytecode coverage tools to precisely capture what parts of a project and its dependencies are used at runtime. Then, we automatically remove the parts that are not covered to generate a debloated version of the compiled project. We successfully generate debloated versions of 220 open-source Java libraries, which are syntactically correct and preserve their original behavior according to the workload. Our results indicate that 68.3% of the libraries' bytecode and 20.5% of their total dependencies can be removed through coverage-based debloating. Meanwhile, we present the first experiment that assesses the utility of debloated libraries with respect to client applications that reuse them. We show that 80.9% of the clients with at least one test that uses the library successfully compile and pass their test suite when the original library is replaced by its debloated version

Image processing for the extraction of nutritional information from food labels

Current techniques for tracking nutritional data require undesirable amounts of either time or man-power. People must choose between tediously recording and updating dietary information or depending on unreliable crowd-sourced or costly maintained databases. Our project looks to overcome these pitfalls by providing a programming interface for image analysis that will read and report the information present on a nutrition label directly. Our solution involves a C++ library that combines image pre-processing, optical character recognition, and post-processing techniques to pull the relevant information from an image of a nutrition label. We apply an understanding of a nutrition label\u27s content and data organization to approach the accuracy of traditional data-entry methods. Our system currently provides around 80% accuracy for most label images, and we will continue to work to improve our accuracy

EvolvingBehavior: Towards Co-Creative Evolution of Behavior Trees for Game NPCs

To assist game developers in crafting game NPCs, we present EvolvingBehavior, a novel tool for genetic programming to evolve behavior trees in Unreal Engine 4. In an initial evaluation, we compare evolved behavior to hand-crafted trees designed by our researchers, and to randomly-grown trees, in a 3D survival game. We find that EvolvingBehavior is capable of producing behavior approaching the designer's goals in this context. Finally, we discuss implications and future avenues of exploration for co-creative game AI design tools, as well as challenges and difficulties in behavior tree evolution.Comment: 13 pages, 5 figures. Accepted for publication in Foundations of Digital Games 2022 (FDG '22

Optimisation of Definition Structures & Parameter Values in Process Algebra Models Using Evolutionary Computation

Process Algebras are a Formal Modelling methodology which are an effective tool for defining models of complex systems, particularly those involving multiple interacting processes. However, describing such a model using Process Algebras requires expertise from both the modeller and the domain expert. Finding the correct model to describe a system can be difficult. Further more, even with the correct model, parameter tuning to allow model outputs to match experimental data can also be both difficult and time consuming. Evolutionary Algorithms provide effective methods for finding solutions to optimisation problems with large and noisy search spaces. Evolutionary Algorithms have been proven to be well suited to investigating parameter fitting problems in order to match known data or desired behaviour. It is proposed that Process Algebras and Evolutionary Algorithms have complementary strengths for developing models of complex systems. Evolutionary Algorithms require a precise and accurate fitness function to score and rank solutions. Process Algebras can be incorporated into the fitness function to provide this mathematical score. Presented in this work is the Evolving Process Algebra (EPA) framework, designed for the application of Evolutionary Algorithms (specifically Genetic Algorithms and Genetic Programming optimisation techniques) to models described in Process Algebra (specifically PEPA and Bio-PEPA) with the aim of evolving fitter models. The EPA framework is demonstrated using multiple complex systems. For PEPA this includes the dining philosophers resource allocation problem, the repressilator genetic circuit, the G-protein cellular signal regulators and two epidemiological problems: HIV and the measles virus. For Bio-PEPA the problems include a biochemical reactant-product system, a generic genetic network, a variant of the G-protein system and three epidemiological problems derived from the measles virus. Also presented is the EPA Utility Assistant program; a lightweight graphical user interface. This is designed to open the full functionality and parallelisation of the EPA framework to beginner or naive users. In addition, the assistant program aids in collating and graphing after experiments are completed