Advertisement

Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 399–405 | Cite as

Just because it works: a response to comments on “On the Mapping of Genotype to Phenotype in Evolutionary Algorithms”

  • Peter A. WhighamEmail author
  • Grant Dick
  • James Maclaurin
Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Mapping of Genotype to Phenotype in Evolutionary Algorithms

Abstract

This response examines the context and implications of the comments to "On the Mapping of Genotype to Phenotype in Evolutionary Algorithms" that appears in this journal. The notion of metaphor is first considered and then the general themes of the commentaries addressed. The response subsequently focuses on representation and operators, noting that many of the comments support our basic premise.

The main conclusion is that Sterelny's conditions do form a suitable basis for representation and operator design and that the collection of responses form an excellent basis for further discussion and research in evolutionary computation.

Keywords

Genetic programming Biological analogy Grammatical evolution Representation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Special thanks must go to Lee Spector, Editor-in-Chief of Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, for managing the submission and editorial process for this discussion. His efforts in streamlining this process have been greatly appreciated.

References

  1. 1.
    J.A. Foster, Taking “biology” just seriously enough: Commentary on “On the mapping of genotype to phenotype in evolutionary algorithms” by Peter A. Whigham, Grant Dick, and James Maclaurin. Genet. Program. Evolvable. Mach. (2017). doi: 10.1007/s10710-017-9296-x
  2. 2.
    L. Altenberg, Probing the axioms of evolutionary algorithm design: Commentary on “On the mapping of genotype to phenotype in evolutionary algorithms” by Peter A. Whigham, Grant Dick, and James Maclaurin. Genet. Program. Evolvable. Mach. (2017). doi: 10.1007/s10710-017-9290-3
  3. 3.
    A. Ekárt, P.R. Lewis, Genotype–phenotype mapping implications for genetic programming representation: Commentary on “On the mapping of genotype to phenotype in evolutionary algorithms” by Peter A. Whigham, Grant Dick, and James Maclaurin. Genet. Program. Evolvable. Mach. (2017). doi: 10.1007/s10710-017-9291-2
  4. 4.
    D.B. Kell, Evolutionary algorithms and synthetic biology for directed evolution: Commentary on “On the mapping of genotype to phenotype in evolutionary algorithms” by Peter A. Whigham, Grant Dick, and James Maclaurin. Genet. Program. Evolvable. Mach. (2017). doi: 10.1007/s10710-017-9292-1
  5. 5.
    M. O’Neill, M. Nicolau, Commentary on “On the mapping of genotype to phenotype in evolutionary algorithms” by Whigham, Dick and Maclaurin. Genet. Program. Evolvable. Mach. (2017). doi: 10.1007/s10710-017-9293-0
  6. 6.
    C. Ryan, A rebuttal to Whigham, Dick, and Maclaurin by one of the inventors of grammatical evolution: Commentary on “On the mapping of genotype to phenotype in evolutionary algorithms” by Peter A. Whigham, Grant Dick, and James Maclaurin. Genet. Program. Evolvable. Mach. (2017). doi: 10.1007/s10710-017-9294-z
  7. 7.
    G. Squillero, A. Tonda, (Over-)Realism in evolutionary computation: Commentary on “On the mapping of genotype to phenotype in evolutionary algorithms” by Peter A. Whigham, Grant Dick, and James Maclaurin. Genet. Program. Evolvable. Mach. (2017). doi: 10.1007/s10710-017-9295-y
  8. 8.
    K. Sörensen, Metaheuristics—the metaphor exposed. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 22(1), 3–18 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.C. Lewontin, The units of selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1, 1–18 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    K. Sterelny, Niche construction, developmental systems and the extended replicator, in Cycles of Contingency: Developmental Systems and Evolution, ed. by S. Oyama, R.D. Gray, P.E. Griffiths (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Poli, A simple but theoretically-motivated method to control bloat in genetic programming, in European Conference on Genetic Programming (Springer, 2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    I. Rechenberg, Evolutionsstrategie: Optimierung Technischer Systeme Nach Prinzipien der Biologischen Evolution (Frommann-Holzboog, Stuttgart, 1973)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Ryan, J. Collins, M.O. Neill, Grammatical evolution: Evolving programs for an arbitrary language, in Genetic Programming: First European Workshop, EuroGP’98 Paris, France, April 14–15, 1998 Proceedings, ed. by W. Banzhaf, et al. (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998) pp. 83–96Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Brabazon, M. O’Neill, S. McGarraghy, Natural Computing Algorithms (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. Davis, Hybridization and numerical representation, in Handbook of Genetic Algorithms, ed. by L. Davis (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1991) pp. 61–71Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Goldberg, Real-coded genetic algorithms, virtual alphabets, and blocking. Complex Syst 5(2), 139–167 (1991)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    C.Z. Janikow, Z. Michalewicz, An experimental comparison of binary and floating point representations in genetic algorithms, in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, ed. by R.K. Belew, L.B. Booker (Morgan Kaufmann, San Diego, CA, 1991) pp. 31–36Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A.H. Wright, Genetic algorithms for real parameter optimization, in Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, ed. by G.J.E. Rawlins (Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California, 1991) pp. 205–218Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P.A. Whigham, G. Dick, J. Maclaurin, On the Mapping of Genotype to Phenotype in Evolutionary Algorithms. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 2016. TBAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    P.A. Whigham et al., Examining the “Best of Both Worlds” of grammatical evolution, in Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (ACM, Madrid, Spain, 2015), pp. 1111–1118Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. McDermott et al., Genetic programming needs better benchmarks, in Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (ACM, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2012) pp. 791–798Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    D.R. White et al., Better GP benchmarks: community survey results and proposals. Genet. Program. Evol. Mach. 14(1), 3–29 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter A. Whigham
    • 1
    Email author
  • Grant Dick
    • 1
  • James Maclaurin
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information ScienceUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations