Evolutionary improvement of programs

Most applications of genetic programming (GP) involve the creation of an entirely new function, program or expression to solve a specific problem. In this paper, we propose a new approach that applies GP to improve existing software by optimizing its non-functional properties such as execution time, memory usage, or power consumption. In general, satisfying non-functional requirements is a difficult task and often achieved in part by optimizing compilers. However, modern compilers are in general not always able to produce semantically equivalent alternatives that optimize non-functional properties, even if such alternatives are known to exist: this is usually due to the limited local nature of such optimizations. In this paper, we discuss how best to combine and extend the existing evolutionary methods of GP, multiobjective optimization, and coevolution in order to improve existing software. Given as input the implementation of a function, we attempt to evolve a semantically equivalent version, in this case optimized to reduce execution time subject to a given probability distribution of inputs. We demonstrate that our framework is able to produce non-obvious optimizations that compilers are not yet able to generate on eight example functions. We employ a coevolved population of test cases to encourage the preservation of the function's semantics. We exploit the original program both through seeding of the population in order to focus the search, and as an oracle for testing purposes. As well as discussing the issues that arise when attempting to improve software, we employ rigorous experimental method to provide interesting and practical insights to suggest how to address these issues

Evolutionary algorithm-based analysis of gravitational microlensing lightcurves

A new algorithm developed to perform autonomous fitting of gravitational microlensing lightcurves is presented. The new algorithm is conceptually simple, versatile and robust, and parallelises trivially; it combines features of extant evolutionary algorithms with some novel ones, and fares well on the problem of fitting binary-lens microlensing lightcurves, as well as on a number of other difficult optimisation problems. Success rates in excess of 90% are achieved when fitting synthetic though noisy binary-lens lightcurves, allowing no more than 20 minutes per fit on a desktop computer; this success rate is shown to compare very favourably with that of both a conventional (iterated simplex) algorithm, and a more state-of-the-art, artificial neural network-based approach. As such, this work provides proof of concept for the use of an evolutionary algorithm as the basis for real-time, autonomous modelling of microlensing events. Further work is required to investigate how the algorithm will fare when faced with more complex and realistic microlensing modelling problems; it is, however, argued here that the use of parallel computing platforms, such as inexpensive graphics processing units, should allow fitting times to be constrained to under an hour, even when dealing with complicated microlensing models. In any event, it is hoped that this work might stimulate some interest in evolutionary algorithms, and that the algorithm described here might prove useful for solving microlensing and/or more general model-fitting problems.Comment: 14 pages, 3 figures; accepted for publication in MNRA

Automatic programming methodologies for electronic hardware fault monitoring

This paper presents three variants of Genetic Programming (GP) approaches for intelligent online performance monitoring of electronic circuits and systems. Reliability modeling of electronic circuits can be best performed by the Stressor - susceptibility interaction model. A circuit or a system is considered to be failed once the stressor has exceeded the susceptibility limits. For on-line prediction, validated stressor vectors may be obtained by direct measurements or sensors, which after pre-processing and standardization are fed into the GP models. Empirical results are compared with artificial neural networks trained using backpropagation algorithm and classification and regression trees. The performance of the proposed method is evaluated by comparing the experiment results with the actual failure model values. The developed model reveals that GP could play an important role for future fault monitoring systems.This research was supported by the International Joint Research Grant of the IITA (Institute of Information Technology Assessment) foreign professor invitation program of the MIC (Ministry of Information and Communication), Korea

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

Multi-agent evolutionary systems for the generation of complex virtual worlds

Modern films, games and virtual reality applications are dependent on convincing computer graphics. Highly complex models are a requirement for the successful delivery of many scenes and environments. While workflows such as rendering, compositing and animation have been streamlined to accommodate increasing demands, modelling complex models is still a laborious task. This paper introduces the computational benefits of an Interactive Genetic Algorithm (IGA) to computer graphics modelling while compensating the effects of user fatigue, a common issue with Interactive Evolutionary Computation. An intelligent agent is used in conjunction with an IGA that offers the potential to reduce the effects of user fatigue by learning from the choices made by the human designer and directing the search accordingly. This workflow accelerates the layout and distribution of basic elements to form complex models. It captures the designer's intent through interaction, and encourages playful discovery

Evolutionary model type selection for global surrogate modeling

Due to the scale and computational complexity of currently used simulation codes, global surrogate (metamodels) models have become indispensable tools for exploring and understanding the design space. Due to their compact formulation they are cheap to evaluate and thus readily facilitate visualization, design space exploration, rapid prototyping, and sensitivity analysis. They can also be used as accurate building blocks in design packages or larger simulation environments. Consequently, there is great interest in techniques that facilitate the construction of such approximation models while minimizing the computational cost and maximizing model accuracy. Many surrogate model types exist ( Support Vector Machines, Kriging, Neural Networks, etc.) but no type is optimal in all circumstances. Nor is there any hard theory available that can help make this choice. In this paper we present an automatic approach to the model type selection problem. We describe an adaptive global surrogate modeling environment with adaptive sampling, driven by speciated evolution. Different model types are evolved cooperatively using a Genetic Algorithm ( heterogeneous evolution) and compete to approximate the iteratively selected data. In this way the optimal model type and complexity for a given data set or simulation code can be dynamically determined. Its utility and performance is demonstrated on a number of problems where it outperforms traditional sequential execution of each model type