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

Artificial evolution with Binary Decision Diagrams: a study in evolvability in neutral spaces

This thesis develops a new approach to evolving Binary Decision Diagrams, and uses it to study evolvability issues. For reasons that are not yet fully understood, current approaches to artificial evolution fail to exhibit the evolvability so readily exhibited in nature. To be able to apply evolvability to artificial evolution the field must first understand and characterise it; this will then lead to systems which are much more capable than they are currently. An experimental approach is taken. Carefully crafted, controlled experiments elucidate the mechanisms and properties that facilitate evolvability, focusing on the roles and interplay between neutrality, modularity, gradualism, robustness and diversity. Evolvability is found to emerge under gradual evolution as a biased distribution of functionality within the genotype-phenotype map, which serves to direct phenotypic variation. Neutrality facilitates fitness-conserving exploration, completely alleviating local optima. Population diversity, in conjunction with neutrality, is shown to facilitate the evolution of evolvability. The search is robust, scalable, and insensitive to the absence of initial diversity. The thesis concludes that gradual evolution in a search space that is free of local optima by way of neutrality can be a viable alternative to problematic evolution on multi-modal landscapes

Explicit Building-Block Multiobjective Genetic Algorithms: Theory, Analysis, and Developing

This dissertation research emphasizes explicit Building Block (BB) based MO EAs performance and detailed symbolic representation. An explicit BB-based MOEA for solving constrained and real-world MOPs is developed the Multiobjective Messy Genetic Algorithm II (MOMGA-II) which is designed to validate symbolic BB concepts. The MOMGA-II demonstrates that explicit BB-based MOEAs provide insight into solving difficult MOPs that is generally not realized through the use of implicit BB-based MOEA approaches. This insight is necessary to increase the effectiveness of all MOEA approaches. In order to increase MOEA computational efficiency parallelization of MOEAs is addressed. Communications between processors in a parallel MOEA implementation is extremely important, hence innovative migration and replacement schemes for use in parallel MOEAs are detailed and tested. These parallel concepts support the development of the first explicit BB-based parallel MOEA the pMOMGA-II. MOEA theory is also advanced through the derivation of the first MOEA population sizing theory. The multiobjective population sizing theory presented derives the MOEA population size necessary in order to achieve good results within a specified level of confidence. Just as in the single objective approach the MOEA population sizing theory presents a very conservative sizing estimate. Validated results illustrate insight into building block phenomena good efficiency excellent effectiveness and motivation for future research in the area of explicit BB-based MOEAs. Thus the generic results of this research effort have applicability that aid in solving many different MOPs

Developing collaborative planning support tools for optimised farming in Western Australia

Land-use (farm) planning is a highly complex and dynamic process. A land-use plan can be optimal at one point in time, but its currency can change quickly due to the dynamic nature of the variables driving the land-use decision-making process. These include external drivers such as weather and produce markets, that also interact with the biophysical interactions and management activities of crop production.The active environment of an annual farm planning process can be envisioned as being cone-like. At the beginning of the sowing year, the number of options open to the manager is huge, although uncertainty is high due to the inability to foresee future weather and market conditions. As the production year reveals itself, the uncertainties around weather and markets become more certain, as does the impact of weather and management activities on future production levels. This restricts the number of alternative management options available to the farm manager. Moreover, every decision made, such as crop type sown in a paddock, will constrains the range of management activities possible in that paddock for the rest of the growing season.This research has developed a prototype Land-use Decision Support System (LUDSS) to aid farm managers in their tactical farm management decision making. The prototype applies an innovative approach that mimics the way in which a farm manager and/or consultant would search for optimal solutions at a whole-farm level. This model captured the range of possible management activities available to the manager and the impact that both external (to the farm) and internal drivers have on crop production and the environment. It also captured the risk and uncertainty found in the decision space.The developed prototype is based on a Multiple Objective Decision-making (MODM) - á Posteriori approach incorporating an Exhaustive Search method. The objective set used for the model is: maximising profit and minimising environmental impact. Pareto optimisation theory was chosen as the method to select the optimal solution and a Monte Carlo simulator is integrated into the prototype to incorporate the dynamic nature of the farm decision making process. The prototype has a user-friendly front and back end to allow farmers to input data, drive the application and extract information easily

El mundo de las ciencias de la complejidad

La situación es verdaderamente apasionante. Mientras que en el mundo llamado real –y entonces se hace referencia a dominios como la política, la economía, los conflictos militares y sociales, por ejemplo–, la percepción natural –digamos: de los medios y la opinión pública– es que el país y el mundo se encuentran en condiciones difíciles; en algunos casos, dramática; y en muchas ocasiones trágica, en el campo del progreso del conocimiento asistimos a una magnífica vitalidad. Esta vitalidad se expresa en la ciencia de punta y, notablemente, en las ciencias de la complejidad. Mientras que la ciencia normal –para volver a la expresión de Kuhn– se encuentra literalmente a la defensiva en numerosos campos, temas y problemas –digamos, a la defensiva con respecto al decurso de los acontecimientos y a las dinámicas del mundo contemporáneo–, en el contexto del estudio de los sistemas complejos adaptativos asistimos a una vitalidad que es prácticamente desconocida para la corriente principal de académicos –independientemente de los niveles en los que trabajan–, de científicos, de administradores de educación y de ciencia y tecnología (por ejemplo rectores, vicerrectores, decanos, directores de departamentos, tomadores de decisión, políticos y gobernantes). La corriente principal del conocimiento (mainstream) desconoce una circunstancia, un proceso, una dinámica que sí es conocida por parte de quienes trabajan e investigan activamente en el campo de las ciencias de la complejidad