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

Local wavelet features for statistical object classification and localisation

This article presents a system for texture-based probabilistic classification and localisation of 3D objects in 2D digital images and discusses selected applications. The objects are described by local feature vectors computed using the wavelet transform. In the training phase, object features are statistically modelled as normal density functions. In the recognition phase, a maximisation algorithm compares the learned density functions with the feature vectors extracted from a real scene and yields the classes and poses of objects found in it. Experiments carried out on a real dataset of over 40000 images demonstrate the robustness of the system in terms of classification and localisation accuracy. Finally, two important application scenarios are discussed, namely classification of museum artefacts and classification of metallography images

Corporate influence and the academic computer science discipline.

Prosopography of a major academic center for computer science

Department of Anthropology and Geography Self-Study Report to the Academic Planning Committee

In January of 2001 the Department of Anthropology and the Department of Geography became the Department of Anthropology and Geography. This merger was not requested by members of either unit: it was imposed administratively. Under ideal circumstance, such mergers evolve organically through a history of collaborations from the bottom up. Nevertheless, faculty of each unit had collaborated in a variety of contexts so there was some basis for integration. As one may imagine, one of the first things we set out to accomplish as a newly formed unit was the establishment of a common set of by-laws. After about six months of joint meetings we created our by-laws which represented a first crucial step in integrating the department. The administrative and committee structures are fully integrated even though the department functions as two separate curricular programs. The next significant step in our history came in the summer of 2002 when the Geography Program faculty moved out of Avery Hall and physically merged into Bessey Hall and Morrill Hall space occupied by faculty of the Anthropology Program. Prior to our physical merger, we had the option of the Geography Program occupying space in Nebraska Hall. Faculty in both programs strongly felt that such a move would hinder our ability to grow together as a cohesive department even though a physical merger would place great hardships on us all by sharing such a small space. The archaeologists were especially inconvenienced by the loss of teaching and research laboratory space. Nevertheless, we believe we made the correct choice. In August of 2002 Dave Wishart became chair of the department. Patricia Draper had been chair at the inception of the merger and there was reasonable concern that the numerically dominant anthropologists would hold administrative sway in the department. Wishart\u27s election put that fear to rest. Since the move and election of Wishart as chair we have met on numerous occasions to discuss department integration programmatically. Out of these discussions came the Indigenous Peoples specialization in the Geography doctoral program which was approved by the Graduate College in November of 2003. This new doctoral program will permit graduate students to pursue a doctoral degree in the Geography Program in an area, indigenous peoples, in which faculty in both programs have interest and expertise. There is discussion of another track in the Geography doctoral program that would emphasize archaeology, GIS, and cartography. It should be noted that these programmatic mergers, to some extent, were driven by a long history of anthropology faculty serving on geography doctoral committees of students who had research topics that bridged our two disciplines. Finally, we are searching for ways to develop a shared undergraduate minor in regional or area studies. Our merger as a cohesive unit has been accomplished successfully. We are proceeding deliberately to simultaneously maintain the integrity of our disciplines while taking advantage of interdisciplinary opportunities that benefit us and our students. Includes Faculty vitae, Course descriptions, Review of Existing Instructional Programs, proposal for a Specialization in Professional Archaeology at the MA level, Review Team Report: (May 1997), Self-Study Report to the Academic Planning Committee Geography Program, supplementary materials

Department of Anthropology and Geography Self-Study Report to the Academic Planning Committee

In January of 2001 the Department of Anthropology and the Department of Geography became the Department of Anthropology and Geography. This merger was not requested by members of either unit: it was imposed administratively. Under ideal circumstance, such mergers evolve organically through a history of collaborations from the bottom up. Nevertheless, faculty of each unit had collaborated in a variety of contexts so there was some basis for integration. As one may imagine, one of the first things we set out to accomplish as a newly formed unit was the establishment of a common set of by-laws. After about six months of joint meetings we created our by-laws which represented a first crucial step in integrating the department. The administrative and committee structures are fully integrated even though the department functions as two separate curricular programs. The next significant step in our history came in the summer of 2002 when the Geography Program faculty moved out of Avery Hall and physically merged into Bessey Hall and Morrill Hall space occupied by faculty of the Anthropology Program. Prior to our physical merger, we had the option of the Geography Program occupying space in Nebraska Hall. Faculty in both programs strongly felt that such a move would hinder our ability to grow together as a cohesive department even though a physical merger would place great hardships on us all by sharing such a small space. The archaeologists were especially inconvenienced by the loss of teaching and research laboratory space. Nevertheless, we believe we made the correct choice. In August of 2002 Dave Wishart became chair of the department. Patricia Draper had been chair at the inception of the merger and there was reasonable concern that the numerically dominant anthropologists would hold administrative sway in the department. Wishart\u27s election put that fear to rest. Since the move and election of Wishart as chair we have met on numerous occasions to discuss department integration programmatically. Out of these discussions came the Indigenous Peoples specialization in the Geography doctoral program which was approved by the Graduate College in November of 2003. This new doctoral program will permit graduate students to pursue a doctoral degree in the Geography Program in an area, indigenous peoples, in which faculty in both programs have interest and expertise. There is discussion of another track in the Geography doctoral program that would emphasize archaeology, GIS, and cartography. It should be noted that these programmatic mergers, to some extent, were driven by a long history of anthropology faculty serving on geography doctoral committees of students who had research topics that bridged our two disciplines. Finally, we are searching for ways to develop a shared undergraduate minor in regional or area studies. Our merger as a cohesive unit has been accomplished successfully. We are proceeding deliberately to simultaneously maintain the integrity of our disciplines while taking advantage of interdisciplinary opportunities that benefit us and our students. Includes Faculty vitae, Course descriptions, Review of Existing Instructional Programs, proposal for a Specialization in Professional Archaeology at the MA level, Review Team Report: (May 1997), Self-Study Report to the Academic Planning Committee Geography Program, supplementary materials