Skip to main content


Log in

An Empirical Study of Progressive Insular Cooperative GP

  • Original Research
  • Published:
SN Computer Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript


Genetic programming (GP) is a general purpose artificial intelligence method, that breeds populations of computer programs to solve a given problem, mimicking the principles of Darwinian evolution. Among the several different uses, it can be employed for supervised machine learning, interpreting the evolving programs as predictive models. With the objective of improving GP for multi-class classification, in this paper we model a feature of biological evolution: the structuring of populations into sub-populations, or demes. In particular, we present the progressively insular cooperative GP (PIC GP), in which classification is performed by applying two stages, in two different co-evolving sub-populations: a population, called population of specialists, aimed at optimizing the learning for the different classes, and a population, called population of teams, in which specialists are joined and the evolution allows us to obtain the final predictive model. By means of three simple parameters, PIC GP can tune the amount of cooperation between specialists of different classes. Preliminary experiments indicate that PIC GP achieves the best performance when the evolution begins with a high level of cooperation between specialists of different classes, and then this type of cooperation is progressively decreased, until only specialists of the same class can cooperate between each other. In this paper, we compare PIC GP with some state-of-the-art classification algorithms on a rich set of test applications. The obtained results show that PIC GP is highly competitive with the best algorithms, outperforming the majority of its competitors on the studied problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Koza JR. Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1992.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Boucher D. Mutualism. Integr Comp Biol. 2016;56(2):365–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Muñoz L, Silva S, Trujillo L. M3GP—multiclass classification with GP. In: Machado P, et. al., editors. Genetic programming, vol 9025. Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 78–91.

  4. Wilson DS. Structured demes and the evolution of group-advantageous traits. Am Nat. 1977;111(977):157–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Raymer ML, Punch WF, Goodman ED, Kuhn LA. Genetic programming for improved data mining—application to the biochemistry of protein interactions. In: Genetic programming 1996: proceedings of the 1st annual conference. 1996. p. 375–80.

  6. Tan X, Bhanu B, Lin Y. Fingerprint classification based on learned features. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C (Applications and Reviews). 2005;35(3):287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Al-Madi N, Ludwig SA. Improving genetic programming classification for binary and multiclass datasets. In: IEEE symposium on computational intelligence and data mining (CIDM). 2013. p. 166–73.

  8. Bi Y, Bing X, Zhang M. Genetic programming with image-related operators and a flexible program structure for feature learning in image classification. IEEE Trans Evol Comput. 2021;25(1):87–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang M, Smart W. Multiclass object classification using genetic programming. In: Raidl GR, et. al., editors. Applications of evolutionary computing, vol 3005. Berlin: Springer; 2004. p. 369–78.

  10. Zhang M, Smart W. Using Gaussian distribution to construct fitness functions in genetic programming for multiclass object classification. Pattern Recognit Lett. 2006;27:1266–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kishore JK, Patnaik LM, Mani V, Agrawal VK. Application of genetic Programming for multicategory pattern classification. IEEE Trans Evol Comput. 2000;4(3):242–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Silva S, Tseng YT, et al. Classification of seafloor habitats using genetic programming. In: Giacobini M, et al., editors. Applications of evolutionary computing, vol. 4974. Berlin: Springer; 2008. p. 315–24.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Lin JY, Ke HR, Chien BC, Yang WP. Designing a classifier by a layered multi-population genetic programming approach. Pattern Recognit. 2007;40(8):2211–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chien B, Yang J, Lin W. Generating effective classifiers with supervised learning of genetic programming. In: Proceedings of 5th international conference, DaWak 2003. 2003. p. 192–201.

  15. Chen Z, Lu S. A genetic programming approach for classification of textures based on wavelet analysis. In: IEEE international symposium on intelligent signal processing. 2007. p. 1–6.

  16. Smart W, Zhang M, et al. Using genetic programming for multiclass classification by simultaneously solving component binary classification problems. In: Keijzer M, et al., editors. Genetic programming, vol. 3447. Berlin: Springer; 2005. p. 227–39.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Brameier M, Banzhaf W. Evolving teams of predictors with linear genetic programming. Genet Program Evolvable Mach. 2001;2:381–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Haynes T, Sen S, Schoenefeld D, Wainwright R. Evolving a team. Working Notes for the AAAI symposium on genetic programming. 1995. p. 23–30.

  19. Haynes T, Sen S. Crossover operators for evolving a team. In: Proceedings of the second annual conference genetic programming. 1997. p. 1–5.

  20. Muni PD, Pal NR, Das J. Evolving teams of predictors with linear genetic programming. IEEE Trans Evol Comput. 2004;8(2):183–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lichodzijewski P, Heywood MI. Managing team-based problem solving with symbiotic bid-based genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation—GECCO ’08, vol 363. 2008. p. 363–70.

  22. Soule T, Komireddy P. Orthogonal evolution teams: a class of algorithms for evolving teams with inversely correlated errors. Genetic Program Theory Pract IV. 2007;17:79–95.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Thomason R, Soule T. Novel ways of improving cooperation and performance in ensemble classifiers. In: Proceedings of the 9th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation—GECCO ’07. 2007. p. 1708–15.

  24. Luke S, Spector L. Evolving teamwork and coordination with genetic programming. In: Genetic Programming 96 (GP96) conference proceedings. 1996. p. 150–56.

  25. Soule T. Heterogeneity and specialization in evolving teams. In: Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO-2000). 2000. p. 778–85.

  26. Zhang C, Liu C, Zhang X, Almpanidis G. An up-to-date comparison of state-of-art classification algorithms. Expert Syst Appl. 2017;8(2):128–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 


  28. Chawla NV, Bowyer KW, Hall LO, Kegelmeyer WP. SMOTE: synthetic minority over-sampling technique. J Artif Intell Res. 2002;16:321–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Waring J, Lindvall C, Umeton R. Automated machine learning: review of the state-of-the-art and opportunities for healthcare. Artif Intell Med. 2020;104:101822–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Tsakonas A. A comparison of classification accuracy of four genetic programming-evolved intelligent structures. Inf Sci. 2006;176(6):691–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ionita I, Ionita L. Prediction of thyroid disease using data mining techniques. Broad Res Artif Intell Neurosci. 2016;7(3):115–24.

    Google Scholar 

Download references


This work was partially supported by FCT, Portugal, through funding of projects BINDER (PTDC/CCI-INF/29168/2017) and AICE (DSAIPA/DS/ 0113/2019).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karina Brotto Rebuli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the topical collection “Genetic Programming” guest edited by Aniko Ekart, Ting Hu and Nuno Lourenço.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rebuli, K.B., Vanneschi, L. An Empirical Study of Progressive Insular Cooperative GP. SN COMPUT. SCI. 3, 119 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: