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

An Overview of Schema Theory

The purpose of this paper is to give an introduction to the field of Schema Theory written by a mathematician and for mathematicians. In particular, we endeavor to to highlight areas of the field which might be of interest to a mathematician, to point out some related open problems, and to suggest some large-scale projects. Schema theory seeks to give a theoretical justification for the efficacy of the field of genetic algorithms, so readers who have studied genetic algorithms stand to gain the most from this paper. However, nothing beyond basic probability theory is assumed of the reader, and for this reason we write in a fairly informal style. Because the mathematics behind the theorems in schema theory is relatively elementary, we focus more on the motivation and philosophy. Many of these results have been proven elsewhere, so this paper is designed to serve a primarily expository role. We attempt to cast known results in a new light, which makes the suggested future directions natural. This involves devoting a substantial amount of time to the history of the field. We hope that this exposition will entice some mathematicians to do research in this area, that it will serve as a road map for researchers new to the field, and that it will help explain how schema theory developed. Furthermore, we hope that the results collected in this document will serve as a useful reference. Finally, as far as the author knows, the questions raised in the final section are new.Comment: 27 pages. Originally written in 2009 and hosted on my website, I've decided to put it on the arXiv as a more permanent home. The paper is primarily expository, so I don't really know where to submit it, but perhaps one day I will find an appropriate journa

How Noisy Data Affects Geometric Semantic Genetic Programming

Noise is a consequence of acquiring and pre-processing data from the environment, and shows fluctuations from different sources---e.g., from sensors, signal processing technology or even human error. As a machine learning technique, Genetic Programming (GP) is not immune to this problem, which the field has frequently addressed. Recently, Geometric Semantic Genetic Programming (GSGP), a semantic-aware branch of GP, has shown robustness and high generalization capability. Researchers believe these characteristics may be associated with a lower sensibility to noisy data. However, there is no systematic study on this matter. This paper performs a deep analysis of the GSGP performance over the presence of noise. Using 15 synthetic datasets where noise can be controlled, we added different ratios of noise to the data and compared the results obtained with those of a canonical GP. The results show that, as we increase the percentage of noisy instances, the generalization performance degradation is more pronounced in GSGP than GP. However, in general, GSGP is more robust to noise than GP in the presence of up to 10% of noise, and presents no statistical difference for values higher than that in the test bed.Comment: 8 pages, In proceedings of Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO 2017), Berlin, German

Sequential Symbolic Regression with Genetic Programming

This chapter describes the Sequential Symbolic Regression (SSR) method, a new strategy for function approximation in symbolic regression. The SSR method is inspired by the sequential covering strategy from machine learning, but instead of sequentially reducing the size of the problem being solved, it sequentially transforms the original problem into potentially simpler problems. This transformation is performed according to the semantic distances between the desired and obtained outputs and a geometric semantic operator. The rationale behind SSR is that, after generating a suboptimal function f via symbolic regression, the output errors can be approximated by another function in a subsequent iteration. The method was tested in eight polynomial functions, and compared with canonical genetic programming (GP) and geometric semantic genetic programming (SGP). Results showed that SSR significantly outperforms SGP and presents no statistical difference to GP. More importantly, they show the potential of the proposed strategy: an effective way of applying geometric semantic operators to combine different (partial) solutions, avoiding the exponential growth problem arising from the use of these operators

Genetic programming: the ratio of crossover to mutation as a function of time

This article studies the sub-tree operators: mutation and crossover, within the context of Genetic Programming. Two standard problems, symbolic linear regression and a non-linear tree, were presented to the algorithm at each stage. The behaviour of the operators in regard to fitness is first established, followed by an analysis of the most optimal ratio between crossover and mutation. Subsequently, three algorithms are presented as candidates to dynamically learn the most optimal level of this ratio. The results of each algorithm are then compared to each other and the traditional constant ratio

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

Evolutionary Algorithms for Reinforcement Learning

There are two distinct approaches to solving reinforcement learning problems, namely, searching in value function space and searching in policy space. Temporal difference methods and evolutionary algorithms are well-known examples of these approaches. Kaelbling, Littman and Moore recently provided an informative survey of temporal difference methods. This article focuses on the application of evolutionary algorithms to the reinforcement learning problem, emphasizing alternative policy representations, credit assignment methods, and problem-specific genetic operators. Strengths and weaknesses of the evolutionary approach to reinforcement learning are presented, along with a survey of representative applications