Advertisement

Efficient graph-based genetic programming representation with multiple outputs

  • Edgar Galvan-LopezEmail author
Article

Abstract

In this work, we explore and study the implication of having more than one output on a genetic programming (GP) graph-representation. This approach, called multiple interactive outputs in a single tree (MIOST), is based on two ideas. First, we defined an approach, called interactivity within an individual (IWI), which is based on a graph-GP representation. Second, we add to the individuals created with the IWI approach multiple outputs in their structures and as a result of this, we have MIOST. As a first step, we analyze the effects of IWI by using only mutations and analyze its implications (i.e., presence of neutrality). Then, we continue testing the effectiveness of IWI by allowing mutations and the standard GP crossover in the evolutionary process. Finally, we tested the effectiveness of MIOST by using mutations and crossover and conducted extensive empirical results on different evolvable problems of different complexity taken from the literature. The results reported in this paper indicate that the proposed approach has a better overall performance in terms of consistency reaching feasible solutions.

Keywords

Interactivity within an individual (IWI) multiple interactive outputs in a single tree (MIOST) neutrality evolvable hardware genetic programming (GP) 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    J. R. Koza. Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1992.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. R. Koza. Genetic Programming II: Automatic Discovery of Reusable Programs, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, pp. 154–163, 1994.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    P. J. Angeline, J. Pollack. Evolutionary Module Acquisition. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference on Evolutionary Programming, La Jolla, CA, USA, pp. 154–163, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    P. J. Angeline, J. B. Pollack. Coevolving High-level Representations, Technical Report 92-PA-COEVOLVE, Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence, The Ohio State University, USA, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    D. J. Montana. Strongly Typed Genetic Programming, Technical Report 7866, Bolt Beranek and Newman, USA, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    A. Teller, M. Veloso. PADO: Learning Tree Structured Algorithms for Orchestration into an Object Recognition System, Technical Report CS-95-101, Department of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, USA, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    R. Poli. Parallel Distributed Genetic Programming. New Ideas in Optimization, D. Corne, M. Dorigo, F. Glover (eds.), McGraw-Hill Ltd., UK, pp. 403–432, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    P. J. Angeline. Multiple Interacting Programs: A Representation for Evolving Complex Behaviours. Cybernetics and Systems, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 779–805, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    J. F. Miller, P. Thomson. Cartesian Genetic Programming. In Proceedings of European Conference on Genetic Programming, Lecture Notes in Comupter Science, Springer-Verlag, Edinburgh, Scotland, vol. 1802, pp. 121–132, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    J. F. Miller. An Empirical Study of the Efficiency of Learning Boolean Functions Using a Cartesian Genetic Programming Approach. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, Morgan Kaufmann, Orlando Florida, USA, vol. 2, pp. 1135–1142, 1999.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    W. Kantschick, W. Banzhaf. Linear-tree GP and Its Comparison with Other GP Structures. In Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Genetic Programing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Lake Como, Italy, vol. 2038, pp. 302–312, 2001.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    W. Kantschick, W. Banzhaf. Linear-graph GP: A New GP Structure. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Genetic Programming, Lecture Notes in Comupter Science, Springer-Verlag, Kinsale, Ireland, vol. 2278, pp. 83–92, 2002.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    M. Kimura. The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1983.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    E. Galvan-Lopez, R. Poli. An Empirical Investigation of How and Why Neutrality Affects Evolutionary Search. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, ACM Press, Seattle, Washington, USA, pp. 1149–1156, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    E. Galvan-Lopez, R. Poli. Some Steps Towards Understanding How Neutrality Affects Evolutionary Search. In Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Reykjavik, Iceland, vol. 4193, pp. 778–787, 2006.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    R. Poli, E. Galvan-Lopez. On the Effects of Bit-wise Neutrality on Fitness Distance Correlation, Phenotypic Mutation Rates and Problem Hardness. In Proceedings of Conference on Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Mexico City, Mexico, vol. 4436, pp. 138–164, 2007.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    M. Toussaint. On the Evolution of Phenotypic Exploration Distributions. In Proceedings of Conference on Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 169–182, 2003.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    C. A. C. Coello, A. H. Aguirre. Design of Combinational Logic Circuits Through and Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization Approach. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design, Analysis and Manufacture, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 39–53, 2002.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    X. Xu, R. C. Eberhart, Y. Shi. Swarm Intelligence for Permutation Optimization: A Case Study on N-Queens Problem. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Swarm Intelligence Symposium, Hawaii, USA, pp. 243–246, 2003.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    E. H. Luna, C. C. A. Coello, A. H. Aguirre. On the Use of a Population-based Particle Swarm Optimizer to Design Combinational Logic Circuits. In Proceedings of IEEE NASA/DoD Conference on Evolvable Hardware, Seattle, Washington, USA, pp. 183–190, 2004.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    E. Galvan-Lopez, R. Poli, C. A. C. Coello. Reusing Code in Genetic Programming. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Genetic Programming, Lecture Notes in Comupter Science, Springer-Verlag, Coimbra, Portugal, vol. 3003, pp. 359–368, 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of EssexColchesterUK

Personalised recommendations