Learning to solve planning problems efficiently by means of genetic programming

Declarative problem solving, such as planning, poses interesting challenges for Genetic Programming (GP). There have been recent attempts to apply GP to planning that fit two approaches: (a) using GP to search in plan space or (b) to evolve a planner. In this article, we propose to evolve only the heuristics to make a particular planner more efficient. This approach is more feasible than (b) because it does not have to build a planner from scratch but can take advantage of already existing planning systems. It is also more efficient than (a) because once the heuristics have been evolved, they can be used to solve a whole class of different planning problems in a planning domain, instead of running GP for every new planning problem. Empirical results show that our approach (EVOCK) is able to evolve heuristics in two planning domains (the blocks world and the logistics domain) that improve PRODIGY4.0 performance. Additionally, we experiment with a new genetic operator - Instance-Based Crossover - that is able to use traces of the base planner as raw genetic material to be injected into the evolving population.Publicad

Grammar-based generation of variable-selection heuristics for constraint satisfaction problems

We propose a grammar-based genetic programming framework that generates variable-selection heuristics for solving constraint satisfaction problems. This approach can be considered as a generation hyper-heuristic. A grammar to express heuristics is extracted from successful human-designed variable-selection heuristics. The search is performed on the derivation sequences of this grammar using a strongly typed genetic programming framework. The approach brings two innovations to grammar-based hyper-heuristics in this domain: the incorporation of if-then-else rules to the function set, and the implementation of overloaded functions capable of handling different input dimensionality. Moreover, the heuristic search space is explored using not only evolutionary search, but also two alternative simpler strategies, namely, iterated local search and parallel hill climbing. We tested our approach on synthetic and real-world instances. The newly generated heuristics have an improved performance when compared against human-designed heuristics. Our results suggest that the constrained search space imposed by the proposed grammar is the main factor in the generation of good heuristics. However, to generate more general heuristics, the composition of the training set and the search methodology played an important role. We found that increasing the variability of the training set improved the generality of the evolved heuristics, and the evolutionary search strategy produced slightly better results

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

A Survey on Compiler Autotuning using Machine Learning

Since the mid-1990s, researchers have been trying to use machine-learning based approaches to solve a number of different compiler optimization problems. These techniques primarily enhance the quality of the obtained results and, more importantly, make it feasible to tackle two main compiler optimization problems: optimization selection (choosing which optimizations to apply) and phase-ordering (choosing the order of applying optimizations). The compiler optimization space continues to grow due to the advancement of applications, increasing number of compiler optimizations, and new target architectures. Generic optimization passes in compilers cannot fully leverage newly introduced optimizations and, therefore, cannot keep up with the pace of increasing options. This survey summarizes and classifies the recent advances in using machine learning for the compiler optimization field, particularly on the two major problems of (1) selecting the best optimizations and (2) the phase-ordering of optimizations. The survey highlights the approaches taken so far, the obtained results, the fine-grain classification among different approaches and finally, the influential papers of the field.Comment: version 5.0 (updated on September 2018)- Preprint Version For our Accepted Journal @ ACM CSUR 2018 (42 pages) - This survey will be updated quarterly here (Send me your new published papers to be added in the subsequent version) History: Received November 2016; Revised August 2017; Revised February 2018; Accepted March 2018

Hyper-heuristic decision tree induction

A hyper-heuristic is any algorithm that searches or operates in the space of heuristics as opposed to the space of solutions. Hyper-heuristics are increasingly used in function and combinatorial optimization. Rather than attempt to solve a problem using a fixed heuristic, a hyper-heuristic approach attempts to find a combination of heuristics that solve a problem (and in turn may be directly suitable for a class of problem instances). Hyper-heuristics have been little explored in data mining. This work presents novel hyper-heuristic approaches to data mining, by searching a space of attribute selection criteria for decision tree building algorithm. The search is conducted by a genetic algorithm. The result of the hyper-heuristic search in this case is a strategy for selecting attributes while building decision trees. Most hyper-heuristics work by trying to adapt the heuristic to the state of the problem being solved. Our hyper-heuristic is no different. It employs a strategy for adapting the heuristic used to build decision tree nodes according to some set of features of the training set it is working on. We introduce, explore and evaluate five different ways in which this problem state can be represented for a hyper-heuristic that operates within a decisiontree building algorithm. In each case, the hyper-heuristic is guided by a rule set that tries to map features of the data set to be split by the decision tree building algorithm to a heuristic to be used for splitting the same data set. We also explore and evaluate three different sets of low-level heuristics that could be employed by such a hyper-heuristic. This work also makes a distinction between specialist hyper-heuristics and generalist hyper-heuristics. The main difference between these two hyperheuristcs is the number of training sets used by the hyper-heuristic genetic algorithm. Specialist hyper-heuristics are created using a single data set from a particular domain for evolving the hyper-heurisic rule set. Such algorithms are expected to outperform standard algorithms on the kind of data set used by the hyper-heuristic genetic algorithm. Generalist hyper-heuristics are trained on multiple data sets from different domains and are expected to deliver a robust and competitive performance over these data sets when compared to standard algorithms. We evaluate both approaches for each kind of hyper-heuristic presented in this thesis. We use both real data sets as well as synthetic data sets. Our results suggest that none of the hyper-heuristics presented in this work are suited for specialization – in most cases, the hyper-heuristic’s performance on the data set it was specialized for was not significantly better than that of the best performing standard algorithm. On the other hand, the generalist hyper-heuristics delivered results that were very competitive to the best standard methods. In some cases we even achieved a significantly better overall performance than all of the standard methods

Genetic Programming Hyper-heuristics for Job Shop Scheduling

Scheduling problems arise whenever there is a choice of order in which a number of tasks should be performed; they arise commonly, daily and everywhere. A job shop is a common manufacturing environment in which a schedule for processing a set of jobs through a set of machines needs to be constructed. Job shop scheduling (JSS) has been called a fascinating challenge as it is computationally hard and prevalent in the real-world. Developing more effective ways of scheduling jobs could increase profitability through increasing throughput and decreasing costs. Dispatching rules (DRs) are one of the most popular scheduling heuristics. DRs are easy to implement, have low computational cost, and cope well with the dynamic nature of real-world manufacturing environments. However, the manual development of DRs is time consuming and requires expert knowledge of the scheduling environment. Genetic programming (GP) is an evolutionary computation method which is ideal for automatically discovering DRs. This is a hyper-heuristic approach, as GP is searching the search space of heuristic (DR) solutions rather than constructing a schedule directly. The overall goal of this thesis is to develop GP based hyper-heuristics for the efficient evolution (automatic generation) of robust, reusable and effective scheduling heuristics for JSS environments, with greater interpretability. Firstly, this thesis investigates using GP to evolve optimal DRs for the static two-machine JSS problem with makespan objective function. The results show that some evolved DRs were equivalent to an optimal scheduling algorithm. This validates both the GP based hyper-heuristic approach for generating DRs for JSS and the representation used. Secondly, this thesis investigates developing ``less-myopic'' DRs through the use of wider-looking terminals and local search to provide additional fitness information. The results show that incorporating features of the state of the wider shop improves the mean performance of the best evolved DRs, and that the inclusion of local search in evaluation evolves DRs which make better decisions over the local time horizon, and attain lower total weighted tardiness. Thirdly, this thesis proposes using strongly typed GP (STGP) to address the challenging issue of interpretability of DRs evolved by GP. Several grammars are investigated and the results show that the DRs evolved in the semantically constrained search space of STGP do not have (on average) performance that is as good as unconstrained. However, the interpretability of evolved rules is substantially improved. Fourthly, this thesis investigates using multiobjective GP to encourage evolution of DRs which are more readily interpretable by human operators. This approach evolves DRs with similar performance but smaller size. Fragment analysis identifies popular combinations of terminals which are then used as high level terminals; the inclusion of these terminals improved the mean performance of the best evolved DRs. Through this thesis the following major contributions have been made: (1) the first use of GP to evolve optimal DRs for the static two-machine job shop with makespan objective function; (2) an approach to developing less-myopic DRs through the inclusion of wider looking terminals and the use of local search to provide additional fitness information over an extended decision horizon; (3) the first use of STGP for the automatic discovery of DRs with better interpretability and semantic validity for increased trust; and (4) the first multiobjective GP approach that considers multiple objectives investigating the trade-off between scheduling behaviour and interpretability. This is also the first work that uses analysis of evolved GP individuals to perform feature selection and construction for JSS