Geometric Semantic Genetic Programming for Real Life Applications
In a recent contribution we have introduced a new implementation of geometric semantic operators for Genetic Programming. Thanks to this implementation, we are now able to deeply investigate their usefulness and study their properties on complex real-life applications. Our experiments confirm that these operators are more effective than traditional ones in optimizing training data, due to the fact that they induce a unimodal fitness landscape. Furthermore, they automatically limit overfitting, something we had already noticed in our recent contribution, and that is further discussed here. Finally, we investigate the influence of some parameters on the effectiveness of these operators, and we show that tuning their values and setting them “a priori” may be wasted effort. Instead, if we randomly modify the values of those parameters several times during the evolution, we obtain a performance that is comparable with the one obtained with the best setting, both on training and test data for all the studied problems.
KeywordsGeometric semantic operators Fitness landscapes Overfitting Parameter tuning
This work was supported by national funds through FCT under contract PEst-OE/EEI/LA0021/2013 and by projects EnviGP (PTDC/EIA-CCO/103363/2008), MassGP (PTDC/EEI-CTP/2975/2012) and InteleGen (PTDC/DTP-FTO/1747/2012), Portugal.
- Beadle L, Johnson C (2008) Semantically driven crossover in genetic programming. In: Wang J (ed) Proceedings of the IEEE world congress on computational intelligence, Hong Kong. IEEE Computational Intelligence Society/IEEE, pp 111–116. doi:10.1109/CEC.2008.4630784Google Scholar
- Krawiec K (2012) Medial crossovers for genetic programming. In: Moraglio A, Silva S, Krawiec K, Machado P, Cotta C (eds) Proceedings of the 15th European conference on genetic programming, EuroGP 2012, Malaga. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7244. Springer, pp 61–72. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29139-5-6Google Scholar
- McPhee NF, Ohs B, Hutchison T (2008) Semantic building blocks in genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the 11th European conference on genetic programming, EuroGP’08, Naples. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 134–145Google Scholar
- Moraglio A, Krawiec K, Johnson CG (2012) Geometric semantic genetic programming. In: Parallel problem solving from nature, PPSN XII (part 1), Taormina. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7491. Springer, pp 21–31Google Scholar
- Nguyen QU, Nguyen XH, O’Neill M (2009a) Semantic aware crossover for genetic programming: the case for real-valued function regression. In: Vanneschi L, Gustafson S, Moraglio A, De Falco I, Ebner M (eds) Proceedings of the 12th European conference on genetic programming, EuroGP 2009, Tuebingen. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5481. Springer, pp 292–302. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-01181-8-25Google Scholar
- Nguyen QU, Nguyen XH, O’Neill M (2009b) Semantics based mutation in genetic programming: the case for real-valued symbolic regression. In: Matousek R, Nolle L (eds) 15th international conference on soft computing, Mendel’09, Brno, pp 73–91Google Scholar
- Uy NQ, Hoai NX, O’Neill M, McKay B (2010) The role of syntactic and semantic locality of crossover in genetic programming. In: Schaefer R, Cotta C, Kolodziej J, Rudolph G (eds) 11th international conference on parallel problem solving from nature, PPSN 2010, Krakow. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 6239. Springer, pp 533–542. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15871-1-54Google Scholar
- Vanneschi L, Castelli M, Manzoni L, Silva S (2013) A new implementation of geometric semantic GP applied to predicting pharmacokinetic parameters. In: Proceedings of the 16th European conference on genetic programming, EuroGP’13, Vienna. Springer, pp 205–216Google Scholar