Advertisement

A Grammar Design Pattern for Arbitrary Program Synthesis Problems in Genetic Programming

  • Stefan ForstenlechnerEmail author
  • David Fagan
  • Miguel Nicolau
  • Michael O’Neill
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10196)

Abstract

Grammar Guided Genetic Programming has been applied to many problem domains. It is well suited to tackle program synthesis, as it has the capability to evolve code in arbitrary languages. Nevertheless, grammars designed to evolve code have always been tailored to specific problems resulting in bespoke grammars, which makes them difficult to reuse. In this study a more general approach to grammar design in the program synthesis domain is presented. The approach undertaken is to create a grammar for each data type of a language and combine these grammars for the problem at hand, without having to tailor a grammar for every single problem. The approach can be applied to arbitrary problem instances of program synthesis and can be used with any programming language. The approach is also extensible to use libraries available in a given language. The grammars presented can be applied to any grammar-based Genetic Programming approach and make it easy for researches to rerun experiments or test new problems. The approach is tested on a suite of benchmark problems and compared to PushGP, as it is the only GP system that has presented results on a wide range of benchmark problems. The object of this study is to match or outperform PushGP on these problems without tuning grammars to solve each specific problem.

Keywords

Grammar design Program synthesis Genetic Programming 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research is based upon works supported by the Science Foundation Ireland, under Grant No. 13/IA/1850.

References

  1. 1.
    Byrne, J., Cardiff, P., Brabazon, A., O’Neill, M.: Evolving parametric aircraft models for design exploration and optimisation. Neurocomputing 142(0), 39–47 (2014). SI Computational Intelligence Techniques for New Product DevelopmentCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Byrne, J., Fenton, M., Hemberg, E., McDermott, J., O’Neill, M.: Optimising complex pylon structures with grammatical evolution. Inf. Sci. (0), (2014). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020025514002904
  3. 3.
    Castle, T., Johnson, C.G.: Evolving high-level imperative program trees with strongly formed genetic programming. In: Moraglio, A., Silva, S., Krawiec, K., Machado, P., Cotta, C. (eds.) EuroGP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7244, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-29139-5_1. http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/pubs/2012/3202/content.pdf CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fenton, M., McNally, C., Byrne, J., Hemberg, E., McDermott, J., O’Neill, M.: Automatic innovative truss design using grammatical evolution. Autom. Constr. 39(0), 59–69 (2014). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926580513002124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Forstenlechner, S.: Github repository: HeuristicLab.CFGGP: provides context free grammar problems for HeuristicLab (2016). https://github.com/t-h-e/HeuristicLab.CFGGP. Accessed 24 Jan 2017
  6. 6.
    Gulwani, S.: Dimensions in program synthesis. In: Proceedings of 12th International ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, PPDP 2010, pp. 13–24. ACM, New York (2010). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1836089.1836091
  7. 7.
    Harman, M., Langdon, W.B., Jia, Y., White, D.R., Arcuri, A., Clark, J.A.: The GISMOE challenge: constructing the pareto program surface using genetic programming to find better programs (keynote paper). In: Proceedings of 27th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 1–14, September 2012Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Helmuth, T., Spector, L., Matheson, J.: Solving uncompromising problems with lexicase selection. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 19(5), 630–643 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Helmuth, T., Spector, L.: General program synthesis benchmark suite. In: GECCO 2015: Proceedings of 2015 on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, pp. 1039–1046. ACM, Madrid, 11–15 July 2015. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2739480.2754769
  10. 10.
    Hemberg, E., Ho, L., O’Neill, M., Claussen, H.: A comparison of grammatical genetic programming grammars for controlling femtocell network coverage. Genet. Program. Evol. Mach. 14(1), 65–93 (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10710-012-9171-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koza, J.R., Andre, D., Bennett, F.H., Keane, M.A.: Genetic Programming III: Darwinian Invention and Problem Solving, 1st edn. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Landin, P.J.: The next 700 programming languages. Commun. ACM 9(3), 157–166 (1966). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/365230.365257 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Langdon, W.B., Harman, M.: Optimizing existing software with genetic programming. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 19(1), 118–135 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Langdon, W.B., Ochoa, G.: Genetic improvement: a key challenge for evolutionary computation. In: Li, Y. (ed.) Key Challenges and Future Directions of Evolutionary Computation, pp. 3068–3075. IEEE, Vancouver, 25–29 July 2016. http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/W.Langdon/ftp/papers/langdon_2016_cec.pdf
  15. 15.
    Le Goues, C., Nguyen, T., Forrest, S., Weimer, W.: GenProg: a generic method for automatic software repair. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 38(1), 54–72 (2012). http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~weimer/p/weimer-tse2012-genprog.pdf
  16. 16.
    Loughran, R., McDermott, J., O’Neill, M.: Tonality driven piano compositions with grammatical evolution. In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC 2015, Sendai, Japan, 25–28 May 2015, pp. 2168–2175. IEEE (2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2015.7257152
  17. 17.
    McKay, R.I.B.: Fitness sharing in genetic programming. In: Proceedings of 2Nd Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO 2000, pp. 435–442. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2000). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2933718.2933800
  18. 18.
    McKay, R., Hoai, N., Whigham, P., Shan, Y., O’Neill, M.: Grammar-based genetic programming: a survey. Genet. Program. Evol. Mach. 11(3–4), 365–396 (2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10710-010-9109-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Montana, D.J.: Strongly typed genetic programming. Evol. Comput. 3(2), 199–230 (1995). http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/evco.1995.3.2.199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    O’Neill, M., Nicolau, M., Agapitos, A.: Experiments in program synthesis with grammatical evolution: a focus on integer sorting. In: 2014 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), pp. 1504–1511, July 2014Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    O’Neill, M., Ryan, C.: Automatic generation of caching algorithms. In: Miettinen, K., Mäkelä, M.M., Neittaanmäki, P., Periaux, J. (eds.) Evolutionary Algorithms in Engineering and Computer Science, pp. 127–134. Wiley, Jyväskylä, 30 May–3 June 1999. http://www.mit.jyu.fi/eurogen99/papers/oneill.ps
  22. 22.
    O’Neill, M., Ryan, C.: Grammatical Evolution: Evolutionary Automatic Programming in an Arbitrary Language. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Poli, R., Langdon, W.B., McPhee, N.F.: A field guide to genetic programming (2008). (With contributions by J.R. Koza). Published via http://lulu.com and freely available at http://www.gp-field-guide.org.uk
  24. 24.
    Spector, L.: Automatic Quantum Computer Programming: A Genetic Programming Approach, vol. 7. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spector, L., Robinson, A.: Genetic programming and autoconstructive evolution with the push programming language. Genet. Program. Evol. Mach. 3(1), 7–40 (2002). http://hampshire.edu/lspector/pubs/push-gpem-final.pdf CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Swan, J., Epitropakis, M.G., Woodward, J.R.: Gen-O-Fix: an embeddable framework for dynamic adaptive genetic improvement programming. Technical report CSM-195, Computing Science and Mathematics, University of Stirling, UK, 17 January 2014. http://www.cs.stir.ac.uk/~kjt/techreps/recent.html
  27. 27.
    Helmuth, T.M., L.S.: Detailed problem descriptions for general program synthesis benchmark suite. Technical report, School of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts Amherst (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Whigham, P.A.: Grammatical bias for evolutionary learning. Ph.D. thesis, New South Wales, Australia (1996). AAI0597571Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Forstenlechner
    • 1
    Email author
  • David Fagan
    • 1
  • Miguel Nicolau
    • 1
  • Michael O’Neill
    • 1
  1. 1.Natural Computing Research and Applications Group, School of BusinessUniversity College DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations