KES 2005: Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems pp 540-546 | Cite as
Comparison of the Effectiveness of Decimation and Automatically Defined Functions
Abstract
Decimation and automatically defined functions are intended to improve the fitness of the generated programs and to increase the rate of convergence to the solution. Each method has an associated computational cost, the cost for automatically defined functions being considerably higher than for decimation. This paper compares the performance improvements in genetic programming provided by automatically defined functions with that of decimation on four common benchmark problems – the Santa Fe ant, the lawnmower, even 3-bit parity and a symbolic regression problem. The results indicate that decimation provides improvement in performance that justifies the additional computation but the added computational effort required for automatically defined functions is not justified by any performance improvements.
Keywords
Genetic Programming Normal Case Symbolic Regression Lawn Mower Symbolic Regression ProblemPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Aler, R.: Immediate Transfer of Global Improvements to All Individuals in a Population Compared to Automatically Defined Functions for the EVEN-5, 6-PARITY Problems. In: Banzhaf, W., Poli, R., Schoenauer, M., Fogarty, T.C. (eds.) EuroGP 1998. LNCS, vol. 1391, pp. 60–70. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Angeline, P.J.: An investigation into the sensitivity of genetic programming to the frequency of leaf selection during subtree crossover. In: Koza, J.R., Goldberg, D.E., Fogel, D.B., Riolo, R.L. (eds.) Genetic Programming 1996: Proceedings of the First Annual Conference, Stanford University, CA, USA, July 1996, pp. 21–29. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
- 3.Carbajal, S., Martinez, G.: Evolutive Introns: A Non-Costly Method of Using Introns in GP. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 2(2), 111–122 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Ciesielski, V., Li, X.: Pyramid Search: Finding solutions for deceptive problems quickly in genetic programming. In: Sarker, R., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2003 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC 2003), pp. 936–943. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.D’haeseleer, P.: Context preserving crossover in genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, vol. 1, pp. 256–261. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Eiben, A., Marchiori, E., Valko, V.: Evolutionary Algorithms with on-the-fly population size adjustment. In: Yao, X., et al. (eds.) PPSN 2004. LNCS, vol. 3242, pp. 41–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Koza, J.: Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)MATHGoogle Scholar
- 8.Koza, J.R.: Genetic Programming II: Automatic Discovery of Reusable Programs. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar
- 9.Langdon, W., Poli, R.: Why ants are hard. In: Koza, J., et al. (eds.) Genetic Programming 1998: Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference, pp. 193–201. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco (1998)Google Scholar
- 10.Nanduri, D.T.: Comparison of the Effectiveness of Decimation and Automatically Defined Functions. Masters Thesis, RMIT Department of Computer Science (2005), http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/~vc/papers/nanduri-mbc.pdf
- 11.Rodrigues, E., Pozo, A.: Grammar-Guided Genetic Programming and Automatically Defined Functions. In: Bittencourt, G., Ramalho, G.L. (eds.) SBIA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2507, pp. 324–333. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar