29,302 research outputs found
Differentiable Genetic Programming
We introduce the use of high order automatic differentiation, implemented via
the algebra of truncated Taylor polynomials, in genetic programming. Using the
Cartesian Genetic Programming encoding we obtain a high-order Taylor
representation of the program output that is then used to back-propagate errors
during learning. The resulting machine learning framework is called
differentiable Cartesian Genetic Programming (dCGP). In the context of symbolic
regression, dCGP offers a new approach to the long unsolved problem of constant
representation in GP expressions. On several problems of increasing complexity
we find that dCGP is able to find the exact form of the symbolic expression as
well as the constants values. We also demonstrate the use of dCGP to solve a
large class of differential equations and to find prime integrals of dynamical
systems, presenting, in both cases, results that confirm the efficacy of our
approach
TensorFlow Enabled Genetic Programming
Genetic Programming, a kind of evolutionary computation and machine learning
algorithm, is shown to benefit significantly from the application of vectorized
data and the TensorFlow numerical computation library on both CPU and GPU
architectures. The open source, Python Karoo GP is employed for a series of 190
tests across 6 platforms, with real-world datasets ranging from 18 to 5.5M data
points. This body of tests demonstrates that datasets measured in tens and
hundreds of data points see 2-15x improvement when moving from the scalar/SymPy
configuration to the vector/TensorFlow configuration, with a single core
performing on par or better than multiple CPU cores and GPUs. A dataset
composed of 90,000 data points demonstrates a single vector/TensorFlow CPU core
performing 875x better than 40 scalar/Sympy CPU cores. And a dataset containing
5.5M data points sees GPU configurations out-performing CPU configurations on
average by 1.3x.Comment: 8 pages, 5 figures; presented at GECCO 2017, Berlin, German
Genetic Programming for Multibiometrics
Biometric systems suffer from some drawbacks: a biometric system can provide
in general good performances except with some individuals as its performance
depends highly on the quality of the capture. One solution to solve some of
these problems is to use multibiometrics where different biometric systems are
combined together (multiple captures of the same biometric modality, multiple
feature extraction algorithms, multiple biometric modalities...). In this
paper, we are interested in score level fusion functions application (i.e., we
use a multibiometric authentication scheme which accept or deny the claimant
for using an application). In the state of the art, the weighted sum of scores
(which is a linear classifier) and the use of an SVM (which is a non linear
classifier) provided by different biometric systems provide one of the best
performances. We present a new method based on the use of genetic programming
giving similar or better performances (depending on the complexity of the
database). We derive a score fusion function by assembling some classical
primitives functions (+, *, -, ...). We have validated the proposed method on
three significant biometric benchmark datasets from the state of the art
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
Fine-grained timing using genetic programming
In previous work, we have demonstrated that it is possible to use Genetic Programming to minimise the resource consumption of software, such as its power consumption or execution time. In this paper, we investigate the extent to which Genetic Programming can be used to gain fine-grained control over software timing. We introduce the ideas behind our work, and carry out experimentation to find that Genetic Programming is indeed able to produce software with unusual and desirable timing properties, where it is not obvious how a manual approach could replicate such results. In general, we discover that Genetic Programming is most effective in controlling statistical properties of software rather than precise control over its timing for individual inputs. This control may find useful application in cryptography and embedded systems
Bounding Bloat in Genetic Programming
While many optimization problems work with a fixed number of decision
variables and thus a fixed-length representation of possible solutions, genetic
programming (GP) works on variable-length representations. A naturally
occurring problem is that of bloat (unnecessary growth of solutions) slowing
down optimization. Theoretical analyses could so far not bound bloat and
required explicit assumptions on the magnitude of bloat. In this paper we
analyze bloat in mutation-based genetic programming for the two test functions
ORDER and MAJORITY. We overcome previous assumptions on the magnitude of bloat
and give matching or close-to-matching upper and lower bounds for the expected
optimization time. In particular, we show that the (1+1) GP takes (i)
iterations with bloat control on ORDER as well as
MAJORITY; and (ii) and
(and for )
iterations without bloat control on MAJORITY.Comment: An extended abstract has been published at GECCO 201
- …