Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 251–289 | Cite as

Unveiling the properties of structured grammatical evolution

  • Nuno Lourenço
  • Francisco B. Pereira
  • Ernesto Costa
Article

Abstract

Structured grammatical evolution (SGE) is a new genotypic representation for grammatical evolution (GE). It comprises a hierarchical organization of the genes, where each locus is explicitly linked to a non-terminal of the grammar being used. This one-to-one correspondence ensures that the modification of a gene does not affect the derivation options of other non-terminals. We present a comprehensive set of optimization results obtained with problems from three different categories: symbolic regression, path finding, and predictive modeling. In most of the situations SGE outperforms standard GE, confirming the effectiveness of the new representation. To understand the reasons for SGE enhanced performance, we scrutinize its main features. We rely on a set of static measures to model the interactions between the representation and variation operators and assess how they influence the interplay between the genotype-phenotype spaces. The study reveals that the structured organization of SGE promotes an increased locality and is less redundant than standard GE, thus fostering an effective exploration of the search space.

Keywords

Genetic programming Grammatical evolution Locality Redundancy Representation 

References

  1. 1.
    F. Archetti, S. Lanzeni, E. Messina, L. Vanneschi, Genetic programming for computational pharmacokinetics in drug discovery and development. Genet. Program. Evol. Mach. 8(4), 413–432 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    R.M.A. Azad, A position independent representation for evolutionary automatic programming algorithms—the chorus system. Ph.D. thesis, University of Limerick, Ireland (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Brameier, W. Banzhaf, Explicit control of diversity and effective variation distance in linear genetic programming. In Genetic Programming, Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 2278 (Springer, 2002), pp. 37–49Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Byrne, M. O’Neill, A. Brabazon, Structural and nodal mutation in grammatical evolution. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (New York, NY, USA, 2009), pp. 1881–1882Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Byrne, M. O’Neill, J. McDermott, A. Brabazon, An analysis of the behaviour of mutation in grammatical evolution. In Genetic Programming, Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 6021 (Springer, 2010), pp. 14–25Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Castle, C. Johnson, Positional effect of crossover and mutation in grammatical evolution. In Genetic Programming, Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 6021 (Springer, 2010), pp. 26–37Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    I. Dempsey, M. O’Neill, A. Brabazon, Foundations in Grammatical Evolution for Dynamic Environments (Springer, Berlin, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Fagan, Analysing the Genotype-Phenotype Map in Grammatical Evolution, PhD Thesis, University College Dublin (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Fagan, M. O’Neill, E. Galván-López, A. Brabazon, S. McGarraghy, An analysis of genotype-phenotype maps in grammatical evolution. In Genetic Programming, Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 6021 (Springer, 2010), pp. 62–73Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Field, Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (Sage, Beverley Hills, 2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    I. Gonçalves, S. Silva, Balancing learning and overfitting in genetic programming with interleaved sampling of training data. In Genetic Programming, Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 7831 (Springer, 2013), pp. 73–84Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Gottlieb, C. Eckert, A comparison of two representations for the fixed charge transportation problem. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature PPSN VI, Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 1917 (Springer, 2000), pp. 345–354Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Gottlieb, G. Raidl, Characterizing locality in decoder-based eas for the multidimensional knapsack problem. In Artificial Evolution, Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 1829 (Springer, 2000), pp. 38–52Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Harper, Spatial co-evolution: quicker, fitter and less bloated. In Proceedings of the 14th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation (ACM, 2012), pp. 759–766Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Hugosson, E. Hemberg, A. Brabazon, M. O’Neill, Genotype representations in grammatical evolution. Appl. Soft Comput. 10(1), 36–43 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Jones, S. Forrest, Fitness distance correlation as a measure of problem difficulty for genetic algorithms. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms (Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, 1995), pp. 184–192Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Keijzer, M. O’Neill, C. Ryan, M. Cattolico, Grammatical evolution rules: the mod and the bucket rule. In Genetic Programming, Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 2278 (Springer, 2002), pp. 123–130Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Keller, W. Banzhaf, Genetic programming using genotype-phenotype mapping from linear genomes into linear phenotypes. In: Proceedings of the 1st Annual Conference on Genetic Programming (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1996), pp. 116–122Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J.R. Koza, Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1992)MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    N. Lourenço, F.B. Pereira, E. Costa, SGE : a structured representation for grammatical evolution. In 12th International Conference Evolution Artificielle, EA 2015 (Lyon, 2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    R.I. McKay, N.X. Hoai, P. Whigham, Y. Shan, M. O’Neill, Grammar-based genetic programming: a survey. Genetic programming and evolvable machines, 11(3–4), 365–396 (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. O’Neill, A. Brabazon, Grammatical differential evolution. In H.R. Arabnia (ed.) Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ICAI 2006, vol. 1 (2006), pp. 231–236Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. O’Neill, A. Brabazon, Grammatical swarm: the generation of programs by social programming. Nat. Comput. 5(4), 443–462 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. O’Neill, A. Brabazon, M. Nicolau, S. McGarraghy, P. Keenan, Pigrammatical evolution. In Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, vol. 3103 (Springer, 2004), pp. 617–629Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. O’Neill, E. Hemberg, C. Gilligan, E. Bartley, J. McDermott, A. Brabazon, Geva—grammatical evolution in java (v 2.0). Technical report, UCD School of Computer Science (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    M. O’Neill, C. Ryan, Grammatical Evolution: Evolutionary Automatic Programming in an Arbitrary Language (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, 2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    U.M. O’Reilly, Using a distance metric on genetic programs to understand genetic operators. In IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 5 (1997), pp. 4092–4097Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    J. O’Sullivan, C. Ryan, An investigation into the use of different search strategies with grammatical evolution. In Genetic Programming (Springer, 2002), pp. 268–277Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    G. Raidl, J. Gottlieb, Empirical analysis of locality, heritability and heuristic bias in evolutionary algorithms: a case study for the multidimensional knapsack problem. Evol. Comput. 13(4), 441–475 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    F. Rothlauf, On the locality of representations. In Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 2724 (Springer, 2003), pp. 1608–1609Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    F. Rothlauf, Representations for Genetic and Evolutionary Algorithms (Springer, Berlin, 2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    F. Rothlauf, M. Oetzel, On the locality of grammatical evolution. In Genetic Programming, Lecture notes in computer science (Springer, 2006), pp. 320–330Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    C. Ryan, A. Azad, Sensible initialisation in grammatical evolution. In A.M. Barry (ed.) GECCO 2003: Proceedings of the Bird of a Feather Workshops, Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (AAAI, 2003), pp. 142–145Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    C. Ryan, A. Azad, A. Sheahan, M. O’Neill, No coercion and no prohibition, a position independent encoding scheme for evolutionary algorithms—the chorus system. In Genetic Programming (Springer, 2002), pp. 131–141Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    C. Ryan, J. Collins, M. O’Neill, Grammatical evolution: evolving programs for an arbitrary language. In W. Banzhaf, R. Poli, M. Schoenauer, T. Fogarty (eds.) Genetic Programming, Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 1391 (Springer, 1998), pp. 83–96Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    A. Thorhauer, F. Rothlauf, On the locality of standard search operators in grammatical evolution. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature—PPSN XIII, Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 8672 (Springer International Publishing, 2014), pp. 465–475Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    P.A. Whigham, G. Dick, J. Maclaurin, C.A. Owen, Examining the best of both worlds of grammatical evolution. In Proceedings of the 2015 on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (ACM, 2015), pp. 1111–1118Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    D. White, J. McDermott, M. Castelli, L. Manzoni, B. Goldman, G. Kronberger, W. Jaskowski, U.M. O’Reilly, S. Luke, Better gp benchmarks: community survey results and proposals. Genet. Program. Evol. Mach. 14(1), 3–29 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    K. Zhang, D. Shasha, Simple fast algorithms for the editing distance between trees and related problems. SIAM J. Comput. 18(6), 1245–1262 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Informatics and SystemsUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.Polytechnic Institute of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations