Ripple Crossover in Genetic Programming

  • Maarten Keijzer
  • Conor Ryan
  • Michael O’Neill
  • Mike Cattolico
  • Vladan Babovic
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2038)


This paper isolates and identifies the effects of the crossover operator used in Grammatical Evolution. This crossover operator has already been shown to be adept at combining useful building blocks and to outperform engineered crossover operators such as Homologous Crossover. This crossover operator, Ripple Crossover is described in terms of Genetic Programming and applied to two benchmark problems. Its performance is compared with that of traditional sub-tree crossover on populations employing the standard functions and terminal set, but also against populations of individuals that encode Context Free Grammars. Ripple crossover is more effective in exploring the search space of possible programs than sub-tree crossover. This is shown by examining the rate of premature convergence during the run. Ripple crossover produces populations whose fitness increases gradually over time, slower than, but to an eventual higher level than that of sub-tree crossover.


Genetic Programming Crossover Operator Crossover Point Parse Tree Context Free Grammar 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Frederic Gruau, On using syntactic constraints with genetic programming, Advances in Genetic Programming 2 (Peter J. Angeline and K.E. Kinnear, Jr., eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1996, pp. 377–394.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mike J. Keith and Martin C. Martin, Genetic programming in C++: Implementation issues, Advances in Genetic Programming (Kenneth E. Kinnear, Jr., ed.), MIT Press, 1994, pp. 285–310.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    John R. Koza, Genetic programming: On the programming of computers by means of natural selection, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    David J. Montana, Strongly typed genetic programming, Evolutionary Computation 3 (1995), no. 2, 199–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Michael O’Neill and Conor Ryan, Grammatical evolution, IEEE Trans. Evolutionary Computation (2001).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Riccardo Poli, Is crossover a local search operator?, Position paper at the Workshop on Evolutionary Computation with Variable Size Representation at ICGA-97, 20 July 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conor Ryan, J.J. Collins, and Michael O’Neill, Grammatical evolution: Evolving programs for an arbitrary language, Proceedings of the First European Workshop on Genetic Programming (Paris) (Wolfgang Banzhaf, Riccardo Poli, Marc Schoenauer, and Terence C. Fogarty, eds.), LNCS, vol. 1391, Springer-Verlag, 14-15 April 1998, pp. 83–95.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peter Alexander Whigham, Grammatical bias for evolutionary learning, Ph.D. thesis, School of Computer Science, University College, University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy, 14 October 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Man Leung Wong and Kwong Sak Leung, Data mining using grammar based genetic programming and applications, Genetic Programming, vol. 3, Kluwer Academic Publishers, January 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maarten Keijzer
    • 1
  • Conor Ryan
    • 2
  • Michael O’Neill
    • 3
  • Mike Cattolico
    • 4
  • Vladan Babovic
    • 5
  1. 1.DHI Water & EnvironmentDenmark
  2. 2.University of LimerickLimerick
  3. 3.University of LimerickLimerick
  4. 4.Tiger Mountain Scientific Inc.UK
  5. 5.DHI Water & EnvironmentDenmark

Personalised recommendations