92,924 research outputs found
A Field Guide to Genetic Programming
xiv, 233 p. : il. ; 23 cm.Libro ElectrĂłnicoA 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 Masterâslave 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 â 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 â 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
Improved sampling of the pareto-front in multiobjective genetic optimizations by steady-state evolution: a Pareto converging genetic algorithm
Previous work on multiobjective genetic algorithms has been focused on preventing genetic drift and the issue of convergence has been given little attention. In this paper, we present a simple steady-state strategy, Pareto Converging Genetic Algorithm (PCGA), which naturally samples the solution space and ensures population advancement towards the Pareto-front. PCGA eliminates the need for sharing/niching and thus minimizes heuristically chosen parameters and procedures. A systematic approach based on histograms of rank is introduced for assessing convergence to the Pareto-front, which, by definition, is unknown in most real search problems.
We argue that there is always a certain inheritance of genetic material belonging to a population, and there is unlikely to be any significant gain beyond some point; a stopping criterion where terminating the computation is suggested. For further encouraging diversity and competition, a nonmigrating island model may optionally be used; this approach is particularly suited to many difficult (real-world) problems, which have a tendency to get stuck at (unknown) local minima. Results on three benchmark problems are presented and compared with those of earlier approaches. PCGA is found to produce diverse sampling of the Pareto-front without niching and with significantly less computational effort
Evolving Plasticity for Autonomous Learning under Changing Environmental Conditions
A fundamental aspect of learning in biological neural networks is the
plasticity property which allows them to modify their configurations during
their lifetime. Hebbian learning is a biologically plausible mechanism for
modeling the plasticity property in artificial neural networks (ANNs), based on
the local interactions of neurons. However, the emergence of a coherent global
learning behavior from local Hebbian plasticity rules is not very well
understood. The goal of this work is to discover interpretable local Hebbian
learning rules that can provide autonomous global learning. To achieve this, we
use a discrete representation to encode the learning rules in a finite search
space. These rules are then used to perform synaptic changes, based on the
local interactions of the neurons. We employ genetic algorithms to optimize
these rules to allow learning on two separate tasks (a foraging and a
prey-predator scenario) in online lifetime learning settings. The resulting
evolved rules converged into a set of well-defined interpretable types, that
are thoroughly discussed. Notably, the performance of these rules, while
adapting the ANNs during the learning tasks, is comparable to that of offline
learning methods such as hill climbing.Comment: Evolutionary Computation Journa
Evolving a Behavioral Repertoire for a Walking Robot
Numerous algorithms have been proposed to allow legged robots to learn to
walk. However, the vast majority of these algorithms is devised to learn to
walk in a straight line, which is not sufficient to accomplish any real-world
mission. Here we introduce the Transferability-based Behavioral Repertoire
Evolution algorithm (TBR-Evolution), a novel evolutionary algorithm that
simultaneously discovers several hundreds of simple walking controllers, one
for each possible direction. By taking advantage of solutions that are usually
discarded by evolutionary processes, TBR-Evolution is substantially faster than
independently evolving each controller. Our technique relies on two methods:
(1) novelty search with local competition, which searches for both
high-performing and diverse solutions, and (2) the transferability approach,
which com-bines simulations and real tests to evolve controllers for a physical
robot. We evaluate this new technique on a hexapod robot. Results show that
with only a few dozen short experiments performed on the robot, the algorithm
learns a repertoire of con-trollers that allows the robot to reach every point
in its reachable space. Overall, TBR-Evolution opens a new kind of learning
algorithm that simultaneously optimizes all the achievable behaviors of a
robot.Comment: 33 pages; Evolutionary Computation Journal 201
Methods for many-objective optimization: an analysis
Decomposition-based methods are often cited as the
solution to problems related with many-objective optimization. Decomposition-based methods employ a scalarizing function to reduce a many-objective problem into a set of single objective problems, which upon solution yields a good approximation of the set of optimal solutions. This set is commonly referred to as
Pareto front. In this work we explore the implications of using decomposition-based methods over Pareto-based methods from a probabilistic point of view. Namely, we investigate whether there is an advantage of using a decomposition-based method, for example using the Chebyshev scalarizing function, over Paretobased methods
Tracking moving optima using Kalman-based predictions
The dynamic optimization problem concerns finding an optimum in a changing environment. In the field of evolutionary algorithms, this implies dealing with a timechanging fitness landscape. In this paper we compare different techniques for integrating motion information into an evolutionary algorithm, in the case it has to follow a time-changing optimum, under the assumption that the changes follow a nonrandom law. Such a law can be estimated in order to improve the optimum tracking capabilities of the algorithm. In particular, we will focus on first order dynamical laws to track moving objects. A vision-based tracking robotic application is used as testbed for experimental comparison
Markov Chain Analysis of Cumulative Step-size Adaptation on a Linear Constrained Problem
This paper analyzes a (1, )-Evolution Strategy, a randomized
comparison-based adaptive search algorithm, optimizing a linear function with a
linear constraint. The algorithm uses resampling to handle the constraint. Two
cases are investigated: first the case where the step-size is constant, and
second the case where the step-size is adapted using cumulative step-size
adaptation. We exhibit for each case a Markov chain describing the behaviour of
the algorithm. Stability of the chain implies, by applying a law of large
numbers, either convergence or divergence of the algorithm. Divergence is the
desired behaviour. In the constant step-size case, we show stability of the
Markov chain and prove the divergence of the algorithm. In the cumulative
step-size adaptation case, we prove stability of the Markov chain in the
simplified case where the cumulation parameter equals 1, and discuss steps to
obtain similar results for the full (default) algorithm where the cumulation
parameter is smaller than 1. The stability of the Markov chain allows us to
deduce geometric divergence or convergence , depending on the dimension,
constraint angle, population size and damping parameter, at a rate that we
estimate. Our results complement previous studies where stability was assumed.Comment: Evolutionary Computation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press
(MIT Press): STM Titles, 201
- âŠ