Advertisement

Theory of Disruption in GE

  • Erik HembergEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

We formalize and describe the mapping process of integer input (genotype) to an output sentence (phenotype) in Grammatical Evolution (GE). The aim is to study the grammatical and search bias which is produced by the mapping. We investigate changes in input and the effect on output and analyze the neighboring solutions as well as the effect of changes and bias in representation. Different types of changes are defined to allow classification of the effects that input changes (operators) have. The changes are a part of identifying what the neighborhood for GE search looks like. We call this disruption in GE. Furthermore, a schema theorem is introduced for investigating preservation of material during application of variation operators, an attempt to identify the population effects.

References

  1. 1.
    L. Altenberg, The evolution of evolvability in genetic programming. Adv. Genet. Program. 3, 47–74, (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Altenberg, The schema theorem and Price’s theorem. Found. Genet. Algorithms 3, 23–49 (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T.L. Booth, Sequential Machines and Automata Theory (Wiley, New York, 1967)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Castle, C.G. Johnson, Positional effect of crossover and mutation in grammatical evolution, in European Conference on Genetic Programming. LNCS (Springer, Berlin, 2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.A. Draghi, T.L. Parsons, G.P. Wagner, J.B. Plotkin, Mutational robustness can facilitate adaptation. Nature, 463(7279), 353–355 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D.E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning (Addison-Wesley, Boston, 1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Harper, A. Blair, A structure preserving crossover in grammatical evolution, in The 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 3, 2005.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M.A. Harrison, Introduction to Formal Language Theory (Addison-Wesley Longman, Boston, 1978)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    E.A.P. Hemberg, An exploration of grammars in grammatical evolution. PhD thesis, University College Dublin, 2010Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Keijzer, M. O’Neill, C. Ryan, M. Cattolico, Grammatical evolution rules: the mod and the bucket rule, in EuroGP, vol. 2278 (Springer, Berlin, 2002), pp. 123–130zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Nicolau, Automatic grammar complexity reduction in grammatical evolution, in GECCO 2004 Workshop Proceedings, Seattle, Washington, 26–30 June 2004, ed. by R. Poli et al. (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. O’Neill, C. Ryan, M. Nicolau, Grammar defined introns: an investigation into grammars, introns, and bias in grammatical evolution, in Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 2001), pp. 97–103Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. O’Neill, C. Ryan, M. Keijzer, M. Cattolico, Crossover in grammatical evolution. Genet. Program. Evolvable Mach. 4(1), 67–93 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Poli, C.R. Stephens, The building block basis for genetic programming and variable-length genetic algorithms. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Res. 1(1–2), 183–197 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    F. Rothlauf, Representations for Genetic and Evolutionary Algorithms (Springer, Berlin, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    F. Rothlauf, M. Oetzel, On the locality of grammatical evolution, in European Conference on Genetic Programming (Springer, Berlin, 2006), pp. 320–330Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    F. Rothlauf, M. Oetzel, On the locality of grammatical evolution, in EuroGP, ed. by P. Collet, M. Tomassini, M. Ebner, S. Gustafson, A. Ekrt. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3905 (Springer, Berlin, 2006), pp. 320–330Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Toussaint, The evolution of genetic representations and modular neural adaptation. PhD thesis, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 2003Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Toussaint, The evolution of genetic representations and modular adaptation. PhD thesis, 2003Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    G.P. Wagner, L. Altenberg, Complex adaptations and the evolution of evolvability. Evolution 50(3), 967–976 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    C.S. Wetherell, Probabilistic languages: a review and some open questions. ACM Comput. Surv. 12(4), 361–379 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    P.A. Whigham, Grammatically-based genetic programming, in Proceedings of the Workshop on Genetic Programming: From Theory to Real-World Applications, Tahoe City, 9 July 1995, ed. by J.P. Rosca (1995), pp. 33–41Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    P.A. Whigham, A schema theorem for context-free grammars, in 1995 IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE Press, Piscataway, 1995), pp. 178–181Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    P.A. Whigham, Grammatical bias for evolutionary learning. PhD thesis, School of Computer Science, University College, University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, 14 October 1996Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    D. Wilson, D. Kaur, Search, neutral evolution, and mapping in evolutionary computing: a case study of grammatical evolution. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 13(3), 566–590 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL)MITBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations