Advertisement

Genotype-phenotype-mapping and neutral variation — A case study in Genetic Programming

  • Wolfgang Banzhaf
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 866)

Abstract

We propose the application of a genotype-phenotype mapping to the solution of constrained optimization problems. The method consists of strictly separating the search space of genotypes from the solution space of phenotypes. A mapping from genotypes into phenotypes provides for the appropriate expression of information represented by the genotypes. The mapping is constructed as to guarantee feasibility of phenotypic solutions for the problem under study. This enforcing of constraints causes multiple genotypes to result in one and the same phenotype. Neutral variants are therefore frequent and play an important role in maintaining genetic diversity. As a specific example, we discuss Binary Genetic Programming (BGP), a variant of Genetic Programming that uses binary strings as genotypes and program trees as phenotypes.

Keywords

Genetic Program Constrain Optimization Problem Binary String Neutral Variant Fitness Case 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    C. Darwin: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: Murray 1972, 6th EditionGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Kimura: Nature 217, 624–626 (1968)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Kimura: The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1983Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Mukai: Experimental Verification of the Neutral Theory. In: T. Ohta, K. Aoki (Eds.): Population Genetics and Molecular Evolution. Berlin: Springer 1985Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Reklaitis, A. Ravindran, K. Ragsdell: Engineering Optimization Methods and Applications. New York: Wiley 1983Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Orvosh, L. Davis: Shall we repair? Genetic Algorithms, combinatorial optimization, and feasibility constraints. In: S. Forrest (Ed.): Proc. 5th Int. Conference on Genetic Algorithms, ICGA-93. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann 1993Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Fang, P. Ross, D. Corne: A promising GA approach to Job-Shop scheduling, rescheduling, and Open-Shop scheduling problems. In: S. Forrest (Ed.): Proc. 5th Int. Conference on Genetic Algorithms, ICGA-93. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann 1993Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Nakano: Conventional GA for job shop scheduling. In: R. Belew, L. Booker (Eds.): Proc. 4th Int. Conference on Genetic Algorithms, ICGA-91. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann 1991Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Paredis: Exploiting Constraints as Background Knowledge for Genetic Algorithms: a Case-study for Scheduling. In: R. Männer, B. Manderick (Eds.): Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers 1992Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Eigen: Steps toward Life: a perspective on evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1992Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.R. Koza: Genetic Programming. Cambridge (USA): MIT Press 1992Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.W. Gray, P.S. Covello: RNA editing in plant mitochondria and chloroplasts. FASEB J. 7 (1993) 64PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Banzhaf
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceDortmund UniversityDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations