In the recent years many bio-inspired computational methods were defined and successfully applied to real life problems. Examples of those methods are particle swarm optimization, ant colony, evolutionary algorithms, and many others. At the same time, computational formalisms inspired by natural systems were defined and their suitability to represent different functions efficiently was studied. One of those is a formalism known as reaction systems. The aim of this work is to establish, for the first time, a relationship between evolutionary algorithms and reaction systems, by proposing an evolutionary version of reaction systems. In this paper we show that the resulting new genetic programming system has better, or at least comparable performances to a set of well known machine learning methods on a set of problems, also including real-life applications. Furthermore, we discuss the expressiveness of the solutions evolved by the presented evolutionary reaction systems.


Genetic Programming Input Symbol Computational Formalism Cartesian Genetic Program Output Symbol 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Caudill, M.: Neural networks primer, part i. AI Expert 2, 46–52 (1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cristianini, N., Shawe-Taylor, J.: An introduction to support vector machines: and other kernel-based learning methods. Cambridge University Press (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ehrenfeucht, A., Rozenberg, G.: Basic Notions of Reaction Systems. In: Calude, C.S., Calude, E., Dinneen, M.J. (eds.) DLT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3340, pp. 27–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ehrenfeucht, A., Rozenberg, G.: Reaction systems. Fundamenta Informaticae 75, 263–280 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ehrenfeucht, A., Rozenberg, G.: Introducing time in reaction systems. Theoretical Computer Science 410, 310–322 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fogel, D.B.: Evolving computer programs. In: Fogel, D.B. (ed.) Evolutionary Computation: The Fossil Record, ch. 5, pp. 143–144. MIT Press (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fogel, L.J., Owens, A.J., Walsh, M.J.: Artificial Intelligence through Simulated Evolution. John Wiley (1966)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frank, A., Asuncion, A.: UCI machine learning repository (2010),
  9. 9.
    Friedberg, R.M.: A learning machine: Part 1. IBM J. Research and Development 2(1), 2–13 (1958)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hall, M., Frank, E., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Reutemann, P., Witten, I.H.: The weka data mining software: an update. SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. 11, 10–18 (2009), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heckerman, D.: A tutorial on learning with bayesian networks. In: Innovations in Bayesian Networks. SCI, vol. 156, pp. 33–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kantschik, W., Banzhaf, W.: Linear-Tree GP and Its Comparison with Other GP Structures. In: Miller, J., Tomassini, M., Lanzi, P.L., Ryan, C., Tetamanzi, A.G.B., Langdon, W.B. (eds.) EuroGP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2038, pp. 302–312. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kantschik, W., Banzhaf, W.: Linear-Graph GP - A New GP Structure. In: Foster, J.A., Lutton, E., Miller, J., Ryan, C., Tettamanzi, A.G.B. (eds.) EuroGP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2278, pp. 83–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koza, J.R.: Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller, J.F., Thomson, P.: Cartesian Genetic Programming. In: Poli, R., Banzhaf, W., Langdon, W.B., Miller, J., Nordin, P., Fogarty, T.C. (eds.) EuroGP 2000. LNCS, vol. 1802, pp. 121–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Montana, D.J.: Strongly typed genetic programming. Evolutionary Computation 3(2), 199–230 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    O’Neill, M., Ryan, C.: Grammatical evolution. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 5(4), 349–358 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    O’Neill, M., Vanneschi, L., Gustafson, S., Banzhaf, W.: Open issues in genetic programming. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 11, 339–363 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Orr, M.J.L.: Introduction to radial basis function networks. Technical report, Centre For Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Platt, J.C.: A fast algorithm for training support vector machines. Technical report, Microsoft Research, Redmond, USA (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Poli, R., Langdon, W.B., McPhee, N.F.: A field guide to genetic programming (2008),, (With contributions by J. R. Koza)
  22. 22.
    Rish, I.: An empirical study of the naive bayes classifier. In: IJCAI 2001 Workshop on “Empirical Methods in AI” (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Teller, A., Veloso, M.: PADO: A new learning architecture for object recognition. In: Ikeuchi, K., Veloso, M. (eds.) Symbolic Visual Learning, pp. 81–116. Oxford University Press (1996)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Whigham, P.A.: Grammatical Bias for Evolutionary Learning. PhD thesis, School of Computer Science, University College, University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia (October 14, 1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luca Manzoni
    • 1
  • Mauro Castelli
    • 1
  • Leonardo Vanneschi
    • 2
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica, Sistemistica e Comunicazione (DISCo)Univesità degli Studi di Milano-BicoccaMilanoItaly
  2. 2.ISEGIUniversidade Nova de LisboaLisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations