A Rigorous Evaluation of Crossover and Mutation in Genetic Programming
The role of crossover and mutation in Genetic Programming (GP) has been the subject of much debate since the emergence of the field. In this paper, we contribute new empirical evidence to this argument using a rigorous and principled experimental method applied to six problems common in the GP literature. The approach tunes the algorithm parameters to enable a fair and objective comparison of two different GP algorithms, the first using a combination of crossover and reproduction, and secondly using a combination of mutation and reproduction. We find that crossover does not significantly outperform mutation on most of the problems examined. In addition, we demonstrate that the use of a straightforward Design of Experiments methodology is effective at tuning GP algorithm parameters.
KeywordsResponse Surface Methodology Genetic Programming Problem Instance Central Composite Design Rigorous Evaluation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Luke, S., Spector, L.: A comparison of crossover and mutation in genetic programming. In: Genetic Programming 1997: Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference, pp. 240–248. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1997)Google Scholar
- 2.Luke, S., Spector, L.: A revised comparison of crossover and mutation in genetic programming. In: Genetic Programming 1998: Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference, pp. 208–213. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1998)Google Scholar
- 5.Johnson, D.S.: A theoretician’s guide to the experimental analysis of algorithms. In: Goldwasser, M.H., Johnson, D.S., McGeoch, C.C. (eds.) Data Structures, Near Neighbor Searches, and Methodology: Fifth and Sixth DIMACS Implementation Challenges, pp. 215–250. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2002)Google Scholar
- 6.Online Experiment Source Code and Scripts, http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/~drw/papers/eurogp2009/
- 10.ECJ (2008), http://cs.gmu.edu/~eclab/projects/ecj/
- 14.Leech, N.L., Onwuegbuzie, A.J.: A call for greater use of nonparametric statistics. Technical report, US Dept. Education, Educational Resources Information Center (2002)Google Scholar
- 16.Vargha, A., Delaney, H.: A critique and improvement of the CL common language effect size statistics of McGraw and Wong. J. Educational and Behavioral Statistics 25(2), 101–132 (2000)Google Scholar