Locality in Continuous Fitness-Valued Cases and Genetic Programming Difficulty
It is commonly accepted that a mapping is local if it preserves neighbourhood. In Evolutionary Computation, locality is generally described as the property that neighbouring genotypes correspond to neighbouring phenotypes. Locality has been classified in one of two categories: high and low locality. It is said that a representation has high locality if most genotypic neighbours correspond to phenotypic neighbours. The opposite is true for a representation that has low locality. It is argued that a representation with high locality performs better in evolutionary search compared to a representation that has low locality. In this work, we explore, for the first time, a study on Genetic Programming (GP) locality in continuous fitnessvalued cases. For this, we extended the original definition of locality (first defined and used in Genetic Algorithms using bitstrings) from genotype-phenotype mapping to the genotype-fitness mapping. Then, we defined three possible variants of locality in GP regarding neighbourhood. The experimental tests presented here use a set of symbolic regression problems, two different encoding and two different mutation operators. We show how locality can be studied in this type of scenarios (continuous fitness-valued cases) and that locality can successfully been used as a performance prediction tool.
KeywordsGenetic Programming Evolutionary Computation Mutation Operator High Locality Evolutionary Search
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Altenberg, L.: Fitness Distance Correlation Analysis: An Instructive Counterexample. In: Back, T. (ed.) Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp. 57–64 (1997)Google Scholar
- 3.D’haeseleer, P., Bluming, J.: Effects of locality in individual and population evolution. In: Kinnear, K.E. (ed.) Advances in Genetic Programming, pp. 177–198 (1994)Google Scholar
- 4.Galván-López, E., McDermott, J., O’Neill, M., Brabazon, A.: Defining locality in genetic programming to predict performance. In: 2010 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), pp. 1–8 (2010)Google Scholar
- 5.Galván-López, E., McDermott, J., O’Neill, M., Brabazon, A.: Towards an understanding of locality in genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO 2010, New York, NY, USA, pp. 901–908 (2010)Google Scholar
- 10.Jones, T.: Evolutionary Algorithms, Fitness Landscapes and Search. PhD thesis, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque (1995)Google Scholar
- 14.Rothlauf, F.: Representations for Genetic and Evolutionary Algorithms, 2nd edn. Physica-Verlag (2006)Google Scholar
- 17.Trujillo, L., Martínez, Y., Galván-López, E., Legrand, P.: Predicting problem difficulty for genetic programming applied to data classification. In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO 2011, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1355–1362 (2011)Google Scholar
- 19.Vanneschi, L., Tomassini, M., Collard, P., Clergue, M.: Fitness Distance Correlation in Structural Mutation Genetic Programming. In: Ryan, C., Soule, T., Keijzer, M., Tsang, E.P.K., Poli, R., Costa, E. (eds.) EuroGP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2610, pp. 455–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Wright, S.: The Roles of Mutation, Inbreeding, Crossbreeding and Selection in Evolution. In: Jones, D.F. (ed.) Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress on Genetics, vol. 1, pp. 356–366 (1932)Google Scholar