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

Evolutionary Behavior Tree Approaches for Navigating Platform Games

Computer games are highly dynamic environments, where players are faced with a multitude of potentially unseen scenarios. In this article, AI controllers are applied to the Mario AI Benchmark platform, by using the Grammatical Evolution system to evolve Behavior Tree structures. These controllers are either evolved to both deal with navigation and reactiveness to elements of the game, or used in conjunction with a dynamic A* approach. The results obtained highlight the applicability of Behavior Trees as representations for evolutionary computation, and their flexibility for incorporation of diverse algorithms to deal with specific aspects of bot control in game environments

Geometric Semantic Grammatical Evolution

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Springer via the DOI in this record.Geometric Semantic Genetic Programming (GSGP) is a novel form of Genetic Programming (GP), based on a geometric theory of evolutionary algorithms, which directly searches the semantic space of programs. In this chapter, we extend this framework to Grammatical Evolution (GE) and refer to the new method as Geometric Semantic Grammatical Evolution (GSGE). We formally derive new mutation and crossover operators for GE which are guaranteed to see a simple unimodal fitness landscape. This surprising result shows that the GE genotypephenotype mapping does not necessarily imply low genotype-fitness locality. To complement the theory, we present extensive experimental results on three standard domains (Boolean, Arithmetic and Classifier)

Evolution of trading strategies with flexible structures: A configuration comparison

Evolutionary Computation is often used in the domain of automated discovery of trading rules. Within this area, both Genetic Programming and Grammatical Evolution offer solutions with similar structures that have two key advantages in common: they are both interpretable and flexible in terms of their structure. The core algorithms can be extended to use automatically defined functions or mechanisms aimed to promote parsimony. The number of references on this topic is ample, but most of the studies focus on a specific setup. This means that it is not clear which is the best alternative. This work intends to fill that gap in the literature presenting a comprehensive set of experiments using both techniques with similar variations, and measuring their sensitivity to an increase in population size and composition of the terminal set. The experimental work, based on three S&P 500 data sets, suggest that Grammatical Evolution generates strategies that are more profitable, more robust and simpler, especially when a parsimony control technique was applied. As for the use of automatically defined function, it improved the performance in some experiments, but the results were inconclusive. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.The authors acknowledge financial support granted by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation under grant ENE2014-56126-C2-2-R

QL-BT: Enhancing Behaviour Tree Design and Implementation with Q-Learning

Artificial intelligence has become an increasingly important aspect of computer game technology, as designers attempt to deliver engaging experiences for players by creating characters with behavioural realism to match advances in graphics and physics. Recently, behaviour trees have come to the forefront of games AI technology, providing a more intuitive approach than previous techniques such as hierarchical state machines, which often required complex data structures producing poorly structured code when scaled up. The design and creation of behaviour trees, however, requires experienceand effort. This research introduces Q-learning behaviour trees (QL-BT), a method for the application of reinforcement learning to behaviour tree design. The technique facilitates AI designers' use of behaviour trees by assisting them in identifying the most appropriate moment to execute each branch of AI logic, as well as providing an implementation that can be used to debug, analyse and optimize early behaviour tree prototypes. Initial experiments demonstrate that behaviour trees produced by the QL-BT algorithm effectively integrate RL, automate tree design, and are human-readable

An improved representation for evolving programs

A representation has been developed that addresses some of the issues with other Genetic Program representations while maintaining their advantages. This combines the easy reproduction of the linear representation with the inherita- ble characteristics of the tree representation by using fixed-length blocks of genes representing single program statements. This means that each block of genes will always map to the same statement in the parent and child unless it is mutated, irrespective of changes to the surrounding blocks. This method is compared to the variable length gene blocks used by other representations with a clear improvement in the similarity between parent and child. In addition, a set of list evaluation and manipulation functions was evolved as an application of the new Genetic Program components. These functions have the common feature that they all need to be 100% correct to be useful. Traditional Genetic Programming problems have mainly been optimization or approximation problems. The list results are good but do highlight the problem of scalability in that more complex functions lead to a dramatic increase in the required evolution time