Advertisement

Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 195–214 | Cite as

A survey of semantic methods in genetic programming

  • Leonardo Vanneschi
  • Mauro Castelli
  • Sara Silva
Article

Abstract

Several methods to incorporate semantic awareness in genetic programming have been proposed in the last few years. These methods cover fundamental parts of the evolutionary process: from the population initialization, through different ways of modifying or extending the existing genetic operators, to formal methods, until the definition of completely new genetic operators. The objectives are also distinct: from the maintenance of semantic diversity to the study of semantic locality; from the use of semantics for constructing solutions which obey certain constraints to the exploitation of the geometry of the semantic topological space aimed at defining easy-to-search fitness landscapes. All these approaches have shown, in different ways and amounts, that incorporating semantic awareness may help improving the power of genetic programming. This survey analyzes and discusses the state of the art in the field, organizing the existing methods into different categories. It restricts itself to studies where semantics is intended as the set of output values of a program on the training data, a definition that is common to a rather large set of recent contributions. It does not discuss methods for incorporating semantic information into grammar-based genetic programming or approaches based on formal methods. The objective is keeping the community updated on this interesting research track, hoping to motivate new and stimulating contributions.

Keywords

Genetic programming Semantics Genotype/phenotype Survey 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by national funds through FCT under contract PEst-OE/EEI/LA0021/2013 and by projects MassGP (PTDC/EEI-CTP/2975/2012), EnviGP (PTDC/EIA-CCO/103363/2008) and InteleGen (PTDC/DTP-FTO/1747/2012), Portugal.

References

  1. 1.
    L.C.J. Beadle, Semantic and Structural Analysis of Genetic Programming. PhD thesis, (University of Kent, Canterbury, 2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L.C.J. Beadle, C.G. Johnson, Semantically driven crossover in genetic programming, in Proceedings of the IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence (IEEE Press, Hong Kong, 2008), pp. 111–116Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L.C.J. Beadle, C.G. Johnson, Semantic analysis of program initialisation in genetic programming. Genet. Program. Evol. Mach. 10(3), 307–337 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    L.C.J. Beadle, C.G. Johnson, Semantically driven mutation in genetic programming, in 2009 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, ed. by A. Tyrrell (IEEE Computational Intelligence Society, IEEE Press, Trondheim, 2009), pp. 1336–1342Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Brameier, W. Banzhaf, Linear Genetic Programming, Number XVI in Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. (Springer, Berlin, 2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R.E. Bryant, Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans. Comput. 35, 677–691 (1986)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Burke, S. Gustafson, G. Kendall, N. Krasnogor, Advanced population diversity measures in genetic programming, in Parallel Problem Solving from Nature—PPSN VII, Number 2439 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, LNCS, ed. by J.J. Merelo-Guervos, et al. (Springer, Granada, 2002), pp. 341–350Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E.K. Burke, S. Gustafson, G. Kendall, Diversity in genetic programming: an analysis of measures and correlation with fitness. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 8(1), 47–62 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Castelli, S. Silva, L. Vanneschi, A. Cabral, M.J. Vasconcelos, L. Catarino, J.A.M.B. Carreiras, Land cover/land use multiclass classification using gp with geometric semantic operators, in Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Applications of Evolutionary Computation, EvoApplications’13 (Springer, Berlin, 2013), pp. 334–343Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Castelli, L. Vanneschi, S. Silva, Prediction of high performance concrete strength using genetic programming with geometric semantic genetic operators. Expert Syst. Appl. 40(17), 6856–6862 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Castelli, L. Vanneschi, S. Silva, Semantic search-based genetic programming and the effect of intron deletion. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 2013. doi: 10.1109/TSMCC.2013.2247754, ISSN: 2168-2267. In press
  12. 12.
    R. Cleary, M. O’Neill, An attribute grammar decoder for the 01 multiconstrained knapsack problem, in Evolutionary Computation in Combinatorial Optimization—EvoCOP 2005, Volume 3448 of LNCS, ed. by G.R. Raidl, J. Gottlieb (Springer, Lausanne, 2005), pp. 34–45Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.M. Daida, H. Li, R. Tang, A.M. Hilss, What makes a problem GP-hard? validating a hypothesis of structural causes, in Genetic and Evolutionary Computation—GECCO-2003, Volume 2724 of LNCS, ed. by E. Cantú-Paz, et al. (Springer, Chicago, 2003), pp. 1665–1677Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J.M. Daida, D.J. Ward, A.M. Hilss, S.L. Long, M.R. Hodges, J.T. Kriesel, Visualizing the loss of diversity in genetic programming, in Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE Press, Portland, 2004), pp. 1225–1232Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E.D. de Jong, R.A. Watson, J.B. Pollack, Reducing Bloat and Promoting Diversity Using Multi-Objective Methods. (Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 2001), pp. 11–18Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. D’haeseleer, J. Bluming, Effects of locality in individual and population evolution, in Advances in Genetic Programming, Chapter 8, ed. by K.E. Kinnear, Jr. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994) pp. 177–198.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Dignum, R. Poli, Operator equalisation and bloat free GP, in Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Genetic Programming, EuroGP 2008, Volume 4971 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. by M. O’Neill, et al. (Springer, Naples, 2008), pp. 110–121Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Ekart, S. Z. Nemeth, A metric for genetic programs and fitness sharing, in Genetic Programming, Proceedings of EuroGP’2000, Volume 1802 of LNCS (Edinburgh, 2000), pp. 259–270Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    E. Galvan, L. Trujillo, J. McDermott, A. Kattan, Locality in continuous fitness-valued cases and genetic programming difficulty, in EVOLVE—A Bridge Between Probability, Set Oriented Numerics, and Evolutionary Computation II, Volume 175 of Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (Springer, Mexico City, 2012), pp. 41–56Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    E. Galván-López, J. Mcdermott, M. O’Neill, A. Brabazon, Defining locality as a problem difficulty measure in genetic programming. Genet. Program. Evol. Mach. 12(4), 365–401 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    E. Galvan-Lopez, M. O’Neill, A. Brabazon, Towards understanding the effects of locality in GP, in Eighth Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (MICAI 2009, 2009), pp. 9–14Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M.A. Ghodrat, T. Givargis, A. Nicolau, Equivalence checking of arithmetic expressions using fast evaluation, in Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Compilers, Architectures and Synthesis for Embedded Systems, CASES ’05 (ACM, New York, NY, 2005), pp. 147–156Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    D.E. Goldberg, U.-M. O’Reilly, Where does the good stuff go, and why? How contextual semantics influence program structure in simple genetic programming, in Proceedings of the First European Workshop on Genetic Programming, Volume 1391 of LNCS, W. Banzhaf et al. (Springer, Paris, 1998), pp. 16–36Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Gottlieb, G. R. Raidl, The effects of locality on the dynamics of decoder-based evolutionary search, in Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO ’00), ed. by L.D. Whitley, et al. (Morgan Kaufmann, Las Vegas, 2000), pp. 283–290Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    S. Gustafson, An Analysis of Diversity in Genetic Programming. PhD thesis. (School of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, 2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. Gustafson, E.K. Burke, G. Kendall, Sampling of unique structures and behaviours in genetic programming, in Genetic Programming, Volume 3003 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. by M. Keijzer, et al. (Springer, Heidelberg, 2004), pp. 279–288Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. Gustafson, E. K. Burke, N. Krasnogor, The tree-string problem: an artificial domain for structure and content search, in Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Genetic Programming, Volume 3447 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. by M. Keijzer, et al. (Springer, Lausanne, 2005), pp. 215–226Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    S. Gustafson, L. Vanneschi, Operator-based distance for genetic programming: Subtree crossover distance, in Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Genetic Programming, Volume 3447 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. by M. Keijzer, et al. (Springer, Lausanne, 2005), pp. 178–189Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    D. Jackson, Phenotypic diversity in initial genetic programming populations, in Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Genetic Programming, EuroGP 2010, Volume 6021 of LNCS, ed. by A.I. Esparcia-Alcazar, et al. (Springer, Istanbul, 2010), pp. 98–109Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    D. Jackson, Promoting phenotypic diversity in genetic programming, in PPSN 2010 11th International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving From Nature, Volume 6239 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. by R. Schaefer, et al. (Springer, Krakow, 2010), pp. 472–481Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    C.G. Johnson, Deriving genetic programming fitness properties by static analysis, in Genetic Programming, Proceedings of the 5th European Conference, EuroGP 2002, Volume 2278 of LNCS, ed. by J.A. Foster, et al. (Springer, Kinsale, 2002), pp. 298–307Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    C.G. Johnson, Genetic programming with guaranteed constraints, in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Recent Advances in Soft Computing, ed. by A. Lotfi, et al. (The Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, 2002), pp. 134–140Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    C.G. Johnson, What can automatic programming learn from theoretical computer science?, in The 2002 U.K. Workshop on Computational Intelligence (UKCI’02), ed. by X. Yao (Birmingham, 2002)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    W. Kantschik, W. Banzhaf, Linear-tree GP and its comparison with other GP structures, in Genetic Programming, Proceedings of EuroGP’2001, Volume 2038 of LNCS (Springer, Lake Como, 2001), pp. 302–312Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    J.R. Koza, Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    K. Krawiec, Medial crossovers for genetic programming, in Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Genetic Programming, EuroGP 2012, Volume 7244 of LNCS (Springer, Malaga, 2012), pp. 61–72Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    K. Krawiec, P. Lichocki et al., Approximating geometric crossover in semantic space, in GECCO ’09, ed. by G. Raidl (ACM, New York, 2009) pp. 987–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    K. Krawiec, T. Pawlak, Locally geometric semantic crossover: a study on the roles of semantics and homology in recombination operators. Genet. Program. Evol. Mach. 14(1), 31–63 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    W. Langdon, R. Poli, Foundations of Genetic Programming. (Springer, Berlin, 2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    M. Looks, On the behavioral diversity of random programs, in GECCO ’07: Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, vol. 2, ed. by D. Thierens, et al. (ACM Press, London, 2007), pp. 1636–1642Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    A. Mambrini, L. Manzoni, A. Moraglio, Theory-laden design of mutation-based geometric semantic genetic programming for learning classification trees, in IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, (IEEE, 2013), pp. 416–423Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    J. McDermott, U.-M. O’Reilly, L. Vanneschi, K. Veeramachaneni, How far is it from here to there? A distance that is coherent with GP operators, in Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Genetic Programming, EuroGP 2011, Volume 6621 of LNCS, ed. by S. Silva, et al. (Springer, Turin, 2011), pp. 190–202Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    R.I. McKay, X.H. Nguyen, P.A. Whigham, Y. Shan, M. O’Neill. Grammar-based genetic programming: a survey. Genet. Program. Evol. Mach. 11(3/4), 365–396 (2010). Tenth Anniversary Issue: Progress in Genetic Programming and Evolvable MachinesGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    N.F. McPhee, N.J. Hopper, Analysis of genetic diversity through population history, in Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, vol. 2, ed. by W. Banzhaf, et al. (Morgan Kaufmann, Orlando, FL, 1999), pp. 1112–1120Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    N.F. McPhee, B. Ohs, T. Hutchison, Semantic building blocks in genetic programming, in Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Genetic Programming, EuroGP’08 (Springer, Berlin, 2008), pp. 134–145Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    J. Miller, P. Thomson, Cartesian genetic programming, in Genetic Programming, Proceedings of EuroGP’2000, Volume 1802 of LNCS (Springer, Edinburgh, 2000), pp. 121–132Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    T.M. Mitchell, Machine Learning. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    D. Montana, Strongly typed genetic programming. Evol. Comput. 3(2), 199–230 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    A. Moraglio, K. Krawiec, C.G. Johnson et al., Geometric semantic genetic programming, in Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, PPSN XII (Part 1), Volume 7491 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. by C.A. Coello Coello (Springer, Berlin, 2012), pp. 21–31.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    A. Moraglio, A. Mambrini, Runtime analysis of mutation-based geometric semantic genetic programming for basis functions regression, in GECCO, ed. by C. Blum, E. Alba (ACM, New York, 2013), pp. 989–996.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    A. Moraglio, R. Poli, Topological interpretation of crossover, in Genetic and Evolutionary Computation—GECCO-2004, Part I, Volume 3102 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. by K. Deb, et al. (Springer, Seattle, WA, 2004), pp. 1377–1388Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    M. Naoki, B. Mckay, X. H. Nguyen, E. Daryl, S. Takeuchi, A new method for simplifying algebraic expressions in genetic programming called equivalent decision simplification, in Proceedings of the 10th International Work-Conference on Artificial Neural Networks: Part II: Distributed Computing, Artificial Intelligence, Bioinformatics, Soft Computing, and Ambient Assisted Living, IWANN ’09 (Springer, Berlin, 2009), pp. 171–178Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Q.U. Nguyen, Examining Semantic Diversity and Semantic Locality of Operators in Genetic Programming. PhD thesis.. (University College Dublin, 2011)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Q.U. Nguyen, B. McKay, M. O’Neill, X.H. Nguyen, Self-adapting semantic sensitivities for semantic similarity based crossover, in Evolutionary Computation (CEC), 2010 IEEE Congress on (2010), pp. 1–7Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Q.U. Nguyen, E. Murphy, M. O’Neill, X.H. Nguyen, Semantic-based subtree crossover applied to dynamic problems, in Knowledge and Systems Engineering (KSE), 2011 Third International Conference on (2011), pp. 78–84Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Q.U. Nguyen, H.T. Nguyen, X.H. Nguyen, M. O’Neill et al., Improving the generalisation ability of genetic programming with semantic similarity based crossover, in Genetic Programming, Volume 6021 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. by A. Esparcia-Alcazar (Springer, Berlin, 2010) pp. 184–195.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Q.U. Nguyen, X.H. Nguyen, M. O’Neill, Semantic aware crossover for genetic programming: the case for real-valued function regression, in Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Genetic Programming, EuroGP ’09, (Springer, Berlin, 2009), pp. 292–302Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Q.U. Nguyen, X.H. Nguyen, M. O’Neill, Semantics based mutation in genetic programming: The case for real-valued symbolic regression, in 15th International Conference on Soft Computing, Mendel’09, ed. by R. Matousek, L. Nolle (Brno, 2009), pp. 73–91Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Q.U. Nguyen, X.H. Nguyen, M. O’Neill, Examining the landscape of semantic similarity based mutation, in Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO ’11 (ACM, New York, NY, 2011), pp. 1363–1370Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Q.U. Nguyen, X.H. Nguyen, M. O’Neill, A. Agapitos, An investigation of fitness sharing with semantic and syntactic distance metrics, in Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Genetic Programming, EuroGP 2012, Volume 7244 of LNCS, ed. by A. Moraglio, et al. (Springer, Malaga, 2012), pp. 109–120Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Q.U. Nguyen, X.H. Nguyen, M. O’Neill, B. McKay, The role of syntactic and semantic locality of crossover in genetic programming, in PPSN 2010 11th International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving From Nature, Volume 6239 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Springer, Krakow, 2010), pp. 533–542,Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Q.U. Nguyen, X.H. Nguyen, M. O’Neill, B. McKay, Semantics based crossover for boolean problems, in Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO ’10 (ACM, New York, NY, 2010), pp. 869–876Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Q.U. Nguyen, X.H. Nguyen, M. O’Neill, B. McKay, E. Galvan-Lopez, An analysis of semantic aware crossover, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Intelligent Computation and Applications, Volume 51 of Communications in Computer and Information Science, ed. by Z. Cai, et al. (Springer, Berlin, 2009), pp. 56–65Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Q.U. Nguyen, X.H. Nguyen, M. O’Neill, R. McKay, D.N. Phong, On the roles of semantic locality of crossover in genetic programming. Inf. Sci. 235(0), 195–213 (2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Q.U. Nguyen, X.H. Nguyen, M. O’Neill, R.I. McKay, E. Galvan-Lopez, Semantically-based crossover in genetic programming: application to real-valued symbolic regression. Genet. Program. Evol. Mach. 12(2), 91–119 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Q.U. Nguyen, M. O’Neill, X.H. Nguyen, Predicting the tide with genetic programming and semantic-based crossovers, in Knowledge and Systems Engineering (KSE), 2010 Second International Conference on (2010), pp. 89–95Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Q.U. Nguyen, M. O’Neill, X.H. Nguyen, B. McKay, E.G. Lopez, Semantic similarity based crossover in GP: the case for real-valued function regression, in 9th International Conference, Evolution Artificielle, EA 2009, Volume 5975 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. by P. Collet, et al. (Springer, Strasbourg, 2009), pp. 170–181 Revised Selected PapersGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    T.H. Nguyen, X.H. Nguyen, A brief overview of population diversity measures in genetic programming, in Proceedings of the Third Asian-Pacific Workshop on Genetic Programming, ed. by T.L. Pham, et al. (Military Technical Academy, Hanoi, 2006), pp. 128–139Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    X.H. Nguyen, R.I. McKay, D. Essam, Representation and structural difficulty in genetic programming. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 10(2), 157–166 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    P. Nordin, F. Francone, W. Banzhaf, Explicitly defined introns and destructive crossover in genetic programming, in Proceedings of the Workshop on Genetic Programming: From Theory to Real-World Applications, ed. by J.P. Rosca (Tahoe City, CA, 1995), pp. 6–22Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    M. O’Neill, C. Ryan, Grammatical evolution. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 5(4), 349–358 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    M. O’Neill, L. Vanneschi, S. Gustafson, W. Banzhaf, Open issues in genetic programming. Genet. Program. Evol. Mach. 11, 339–363 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    U.-M. O’Reilly, Using a distance metric on genetic programs to understand genetic operators, in IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Computational Cybernetics and Simulation, vol. 5, (Orlando, FL, 1997), pp. 4092–4097Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    U.-M. O’Reilly, D.E. Goldberg, How fitness structure affects subsolution acquisition in genetic programming, in Genetic Programming 1998: Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference, ed. by J.R. Koza, et al. (Morgan Kaufmann, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1998), pp. 269–277Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    T.A. Pham, Q.U. Nguyen, X.H. Nguyen, M. O’Neill et al., Examining the diversity property of semantic similarity based crossover, in Genetic Programming, Volume 7831 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. by K. Krawiec (Springer, Berlin, 2013) pp. 265–276.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    D.N. Phong, Q.U. Nguyen, X.H. Nguyen, R. McKay, Evolving approximations for the gaussian q-function by genetic programming with semantic based crossover, in Evolutionary Computation (CEC), 2012 IEEE Congress on (2012), pp. 1–6Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    R. Poli, W.B. Langdon, N.F. Mcphee, A Field Guide to Genetic Programming (2008)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    W.F. Punch, D. Zongker, E.D. Goodman, The royal tree problem, a benchmark for single and multiple population genetic programming, in Advances in Genetic Programming 2, Chapter 15, ed. by P.J. Angeline, K.E. Kinnear Jr. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996), pp. 299–316Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    J.P. Rosca, Entropy-driven adaptive representation, in Proceedings of the Workshop on Genetic Programming: From Theory to Real-World Applications, ed. by J.P. Rosca (Tahoe City, CA, 1995), pp. 23–32Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    J.P. Rosca, Genetic programming exploratory power and the discovery of functions, in Evolutionary Programming IV Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference on Evolutionary Programming, ed. by J.R. McDonnell, et al. (MIT Press, San Diego, CA, 1995), pp. 719–736Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    C. Ryan, Pygmies and civil servants, in Advances in Genetic Programming, Chapter 11, ed. by K.E. Kinnear, Jr. (MIT Press, New York, 1994) pp. 243–263.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    S. Silva, S. Dignum, Extending operator equalisation: fitness based self adaptive length distribution for bloat free GP, in Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Genetic Programming, EuroGP 2009, Volume 5481 of LNCS, ed. by L. Vanneschi, et al. (Springer, Tuebingen, 2009), pp. 159–170Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    S. Silva, S. Dignum, L. Vanneschi, Operator equalisation for bloat free genetic programming and a survey of bloat control methods. Genet. Program. Evol. Mach. 13(2), 197–238 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    S. Silva, V. Ingalalli, S. Vinga, J.A.M.B. Carreiras, J.B. Melo, M. Castelli, L. Vanneschi, I. Gonçalves, J. Caldas, Prediction of forest aboveground biomass: an exercise on avoiding overfitting, in Proceedings of the 16th European conference on Applications of Evolutionary Computation, EvoApplications’13 (Springer, Berlin, 2013), pp. 407–417Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    A. Teller, M. Veloso, PADO: a new learning architecture for object recognition, in Symbolic Visual Learning, ed. by K. Ikeuchi, M. Veloso (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996) pp. 81–116.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    M. Tomassini, L. Vanneschi, P. Collard, M. Clergue, A study of fitness distance correlation as a difficulty measure in genetic programming. Evol. Comput. 13(2), 213–239 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    L. Vanneschi, Theory and Practice for Efficient Genetic Programming. PhD thesis. (Faculty of Sciences, University of Lausanne, Switzerland, 2004)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    L. Vanneschi, M. Castelli, L. Manzoni, S. Silva, A new implementation of geometric semantic GP and its application to problems in pharmacokinetics, in Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Genetic Programming, EuroGP 2013, Volume 7831 of LNCS, ed. by K. Krawiec, et al. (Springer, Vienna, 2013), pp. 205–216Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    L. Vanneschi, S. Gustafson, G. Mauri, Using subtree crossover distance to investigate genetic programming dynamics, in Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Genetic Programming, Volume 3905 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. by P. Collet, et al. (Springer, Budapest, 2006), pp. 238–249Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    L. Vanneschi, S. Silva, M. Castelli, L. Manzoni, Geometric semantic genetic programming for real life applications, in Genetic Programming Theory and Practice XI, Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, ed. by R. Riolo, et al. (Springer US, Computer Science Collection, Ann Arbor, 2013). Invited article. To appearGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    J. Wolberg, Data Analysis Using the Method of Least Squares: Extracting the Most Information from Experiments. (Springer, Heidelberg, 2006)Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    B. Wyns, P. De Bruyne, L. Boullart, Characterizing diversity in genetic programming, in Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Genetic Programming, Volume 3905 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. by P. Collet, et al. (Springer, Budapest, 2006), pp. 250–259Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    M. Zhang, P. Wong, D. Qian, Online program simplification in genetic programming, in Simulated Evolution and Learning, Volume 4247 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. by T.-D. Wang, et al. (Springer, Berlin, 2006), pp. 592–600Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Z. Zhu, A. Nandi, M. Aslam, Adapted geometric semantic genetic programming for diabetes and breast cancer classification, in Machine Learning for Signal Processing (MLSP), 2013 IEEE International Workshop on (2013), pp. 1–5Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonardo Vanneschi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mauro Castelli
    • 1
  • Sara Silva
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.ISEGIUniversidade Nova de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.INESC-ID, ISTUniversidade Técnica de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.CISUCUniversidade de CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations