Semantic Sub-tree Crossover Operator for Postfix Genetic Programming

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 201)

Abstract

Design of crossover operator plays a crucial role in Genetic Programming (GP). The most studied issues related to crossover operator in GP are: (1) ensuring that crossover operator always produces syntactically valid individuals (2) improving search efficiency of crossover operator. These issues become crucial when the individuals are represented using linear string representation. This paper aims to introduce postfix GP approach to symbolic regression for solving empirical modeling problems. The main contribution includes (1) a linear string (postfix notation) based genome representation method and stack based evaluation to reduce space–time complexity of GP algorithm (2) ensuring that sub-tree crossover operator always produces syntactically valid genomes in linear string representation (3) using semantic information of sub-trees, to be swapped, while designing crossover operator for linear genome representation to provide additional search guidance. The proposed method is tested on two real valued symbolic regression problems. Two different constant creation techniques for Postfix GP, one that explicitly use list of constants and another without use of the list, are presented to evolve useful numeric constants for symbolic regression problems. The results on tested problems show that postfix GP comprised of semantic sub-tree crossover offers a new possibility for efficiently solving empirical modeling problems.

Keywords

Postfix genetic programming Symbolic regression Empirical modeling Semantic sub-tree crossover operator 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Dilip P. Ahalpara and Jitendra C. Parikh. Modeling time series of real systems using genetic programming. ArXiv Nonlinear Sciences e-prints, 14 July 2006.Google Scholar
  2. Lawrence Beadle and Colin G. John’son. Semantically driven crossover in genetic programming. In Proceedings of the IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, pages 111–116, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2008. IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  3. V.K. Dabhi and S.K. Vij. Empirical modeling using symbolic regression via postfix genetic programming. In ICIIP11, pages 1–6, 2011.Google Scholar
  4. Candida Ferreira. Gene Expression Programming in Problem Solving. In Soft Computing and Industry Recent Applications, pages 635–654. Springer, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. Candida Ferreira. Gene Expression Programming: Mathematical Modeling by an Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 2nd edition, May 2006.Google Scholar
  6. Cândida Ferreira. Gene expression programming: a new adaptive algorithm for solving problems. CoRR, cs.AI/0102027, 2001.Google Scholar
  7. Christian Gagné and Marc Parizeau. Open BEAGLE: A new C ++ evolutionary computation framework. In GECCO 2002: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, page 888, New York, 9-13 July 2002. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. David E. Goldberg. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA, 1st edition, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. John H. Holland. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control and Artificial Intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge, USA, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. Mike J. Keith and Martin C. Martin. Genetic programming in c ++: Implementation issues. Advances in Genetic Programming, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. John R. Koza. Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. Marco Laumanns, Lothar Thiele, Eckart Zitzler, and Kalyanmoy Deb. Archiving with guaranteed convergence and diversity in multi-objective optimization. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO’02, pages 439–447, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2002.Google Scholar
  13. Xin Li, Chi Zhou, Weimin Xiao, and Peter C. Nelson. Prefix gene expression programming. In Franz Rothlauf, editor, Late breaking paper at Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO’2005), Washington, D.C., USA, 2005.Google Scholar
  14. Sean Luke, Liviu Panait, Gabriel Balan, and Et. ECJ 16: A Java-based Evolutionary Computation Research System, 2007.Google Scholar
  15. Microsoft. Microsoft.net framework software development kit, 2007.Google Scholar
  16. Quang Uy Nguyen, Xuan Hoai Nguyen, and Michael O’Neill. Semantic aware crossover for genetic programming: The case for real-valued function regression. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Genetic Programming, EuroGP’09, pages 292–302, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. Sara Silva and Complex Systems Group. Gplab a genetic programming toolbox for matlab. October, (April), 2007.Google Scholar
  18. Nao Tokui and Hitoshl Iba. Empirical and statistical analysis of genetic programming with linear genome. 2007.Google Scholar
  19. Socrates Torres, Monica Larre, and Josi Torres. A string representation methodology to generate syntactically valid genetic programs. In WSEAS IMCCAS-ISA-SOSM and MEM-MCP, Mexico, 12-16 May 2002.Google Scholar
  20. Nguyen Quang Uy, Nguyen Xuan Hoai, Michael O’Neill, R. I. Mckay, and Edgar Galván-López. Semantically-based crossover in genetic programming: application to real-valued symbolic regression. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 12:91–119, June 2011.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.I.T. DepartmentDharmsinh Desai UniversityNadiadINDIA
  2. 2.DA-IICTGandhinagarINDIA

Personalised recommendations