The influence of mutation on population dynamics in multiobjective genetic programming

Using multiobjective genetic programming with a complexity objective to overcome tree bloat is usually very successful but can sometimes lead to undesirable collapse of the population to all single-node trees. In this paper we report a detailed examination of why and when collapse occurs. We have used different types of crossover and mutation operators (depth-fair and sub-tree), different evolutionary approaches (generational and steady-state), and different datasets (6-parity Boolean and a range of benchmark machine learning problems) to strengthen our conclusion. We conclude that mutation has a vital role in preventing population collapse by counterbalancing parsimony pressure and preserving population diversity. Also, mutation controls the size of the generated individuals which tends to dominate the time needed for fitness evaluation and therefore the whole evolutionary process. Further, the average size of the individuals in a GP population depends on the evolutionary approach employed. We also demonstrate that mutation has a wider role than merely culling single-node individuals from the population; even within a diversity-preserving algorithm such as SPEA2 mutation has a role in preserving diversity

Sequential Symbolic Regression with Genetic Programming

This chapter describes the Sequential Symbolic Regression (SSR) method, a new strategy for function approximation in symbolic regression. The SSR method is inspired by the sequential covering strategy from machine learning, but instead of sequentially reducing the size of the problem being solved, it sequentially transforms the original problem into potentially simpler problems. This transformation is performed according to the semantic distances between the desired and obtained outputs and a geometric semantic operator. The rationale behind SSR is that, after generating a suboptimal function f via symbolic regression, the output errors can be approximated by another function in a subsequent iteration. The method was tested in eight polynomial functions, and compared with canonical genetic programming (GP) and geometric semantic genetic programming (SGP). Results showed that SSR significantly outperforms SGP and presents no statistical difference to GP. More importantly, they show the potential of the proposed strategy: an effective way of applying geometric semantic operators to combine different (partial) solutions, avoiding the exponential growth problem arising from the use of these operators

Evolving Recursive Programs using Non-recursive Scaffolding

Genetic programming has proven capable of evolving solutions to a wide variety of problems. However, the successes have largely been with programs without iteration or recursion; evolving recursive programs has turned out to be particularly challenging. The main obstacle to evolving recursive programs seems to be that they are particularly fragile to the application of search operators: a small change in a correct recursive program generally produces a completely wrong program. In this paper, we present a simple and general method that allows us to pass back and forth from a recursive program to an associated non-recursive program. Finding a recursive program can be reduced to evolving non-recursive programs followed by converting the optimum non-recursive program found to the associated optimum recursive program. This avoids the fragility problem above, as evolution does not search the space of recursive programs. We present promising experimental results on a test-bed of recursive problems

Dissimilarity metric based on local neighboring information and genetic programming for data dissemination in vehicular ad hoc networks (VANETs)

This paper presents a novel dissimilarity metric based on local neighboring information and a genetic programming approach for efficient data dissemination in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs). The primary aim of the dissimilarity metric is to replace the Euclidean distance in probabilistic data dissemination schemes, which use the relative Euclidean distance among vehicles to determine the retransmission probability. The novel dissimilarity metric is obtained by applying a metaheuristic genetic programming approach, which provides a formula that maximizes the Pearson Correlation Coefficient between the novel dissimilarity metric and the Euclidean metric in several representative VANET scenarios. Findings show that the obtained dissimilarity metric correlates with the Euclidean distance up to 8.9% better than classical dissimilarity metrics. Moreover, the obtained dissimilarity metric is evaluated when used in well-known data dissemination schemes, such as p-persistence, polynomial and irresponsible algorithm. The obtained dissimilarity metric achieves significant improvements in terms of reachability in comparison with the classical dissimilarity metrics and the Euclidean metric-based schemes in the studied VANET urban scenarios

Evolution of the discrete cosine transform using genetic programming

Compression of 2 dimensional data is important for the efficient transmission, storage and manipulation of Images. The most common technique used for lossy image compression relies on fast application of the Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT). The cosine transform has been heavily researched and many efficient methods have been determined and successfully applied in practice; this paper presents a novel method for evolving a DCT algorithm using genetic programming. We show that it is possible to evolve a very close approximation to a 4 point transform. In theory, an 8 point transform could also be evolved using the same technique

Self-adaptation of Genetic Operators Through Genetic Programming Techniques

Here we propose an evolutionary algorithm that self modifies its operators at the same time that candidate solutions are evolved. This tackles convergence and lack of diversity issues, leading to better solutions. Operators are represented as trees and are evolved using genetic programming (GP) techniques. The proposed approach is tested with real benchmark functions and an analysis of operator evolution is provided.Comment: Presented in GECCO 201

Searching for Globally Optimal Functional Forms for Inter-Atomic Potentials Using Parallel Tempering and Genetic Programming

We develop a Genetic Programming-based methodology that enables discovery of novel functional forms for classical inter-atomic force-fields, used in molecular dynamics simulations. Unlike previous efforts in the field, that fit only the parameters to the fixed functional forms, we instead use a novel algorithm to search the space of many possible functional forms. While a follow-on practical procedure will use experimental and {\it ab inito} data to find an optimal functional form for a forcefield, we first validate the approach using a manufactured solution. This validation has the advantage of a well-defined metric of success. We manufactured a training set of atomic coordinate data with an associated set of global energies using the well-known Lennard-Jones inter-atomic potential. We performed an automatic functional form fitting procedure starting with a population of random functions, using a genetic programming functional formulation, and a parallel tempering Metropolis-based optimization algorithm. Our massively-parallel method independently discovered the Lennard-Jones function after searching for several hours on 100 processors and covering a miniscule portion of the configuration space. We find that the method is suitable for unsupervised discovery of functional forms for inter-atomic potentials/force-fields. We also find that our parallel tempering Metropolis-based approach significantly improves the optimization convergence time, and takes good advantage of the parallel cluster architecture

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