Trent McConaghy
ABSTRACT
In this paper, we investigate the use of canonical form functions to evolve human-interpretable expressions for symbolic regression problems. The approach is simple to apply, being mostly a grammar that fits into any grammar-based Genetic Programming (GP) system. We demonstrate the approach, dubbed CAFFEINE, in producing highly predictive, interpretable expressions for six circuit modeling problems. We investigate variations of CAFFEINE, including Grammatical Evolution vs. Whigham-style, grammar-defined introns, and smooth uniform crossover with smooth point mutation (SUX/SM). The fastest CAFFEINE variant, SUX/SM, is only moderately slower than non-grammatical GP - a reasonable price to pay when the user wants immediately interpretable results.
- P.J. Angeline, Two Self-Adaptive Crossover Operators for Genetic Programming, Advances in Genetic Programming 2, MIT Press, Chapter 5, pp. 90--115.]] Google Scholar
Digital Library
- W. Banzhaf, Genotype-Phenotype Mapping and Neutral Variation - A Case Study in Genetic Programming, PPSN III, 1994, pp. 322--332.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Breiman et al. Classification and Regression Trees. Chapman & Hall, New York, 1984.]]Google Scholar
- K. Deb et al, A Fast Elitist Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm for Multi-objective Optimization: NSGA-II, Proc. PPSN VI, Sept. 2000, pp. 849--858.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- I. Dempsey, M. O'Neill, and A. Brabazon, Meta-Grammar Constant Creation with Grammatical Evolution by Grammatical Evolution, GECCO 2005, 2005.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Drucker et al., Support vector regression machines, Adv. in Neural Information Proc. Sys. 9, 1997, pp. 155--161.]]Google Scholar
- J.H. Friedman, Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines, Annals of Statistics 19, March 1991, pp. 1--141.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. G. Johnson, Artificial Immune System Programming for Symbolic Regression, EuroGP 2003, Essex, UK, 2003.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Keijzer, V. Babovic, Dimensionally Aware Genetic Programming, GECCO 1999, vol. 2, 1999.]]Google Scholar
- M. Keijzer. Scientific Discovery using Genetic Programming. PhD Thesis, Water & Environment and the Dept. for Mathematical Modelling, T.U. Denmark, 2001.]]Google Scholar
- M. Keijzer, Improving Symbolic Regression with Interval Arithmetic and Linear Scaling, EuroGP 2003, LNCS 2610, 2003, pp. 71--83.M. Keijzer, Improving Symbolic Regression with Interval Arithmetic and Linear Scaling, EuroGP 2003, LNCS 2610, 2003, pp. 71--83.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Keijzer, Scaled Symbolic Regression, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 5(3), Sept. 2004, pp. 259--269.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Kirshenbaum, H. J. Suermondt, Using Genetic Programming to Obtain a Closed-Form Approximation to a Recursive Function, GECCO 2004, 2004, pp. 543--556.]]Google Scholar
- J.R. Koza. Genetic Programming. MIT Press, 1992.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. B. Langdon, R. Poli. Foundations of Genetic Programming. Springer, 2002.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Langley et al. Scientific Discovery, Computational Explorations of the Creative Process. The MIT Press, 1987.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. McConaghy, T. Eeckelaert, and G. Gielen, CAFFEINE: Template-free Symbolic Model Generation of Analog Circuits via Canonical Form Functions and Genetic Programming, Design Automation and Test Europe, 2005.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. McConaghy, G. Gielen, Analysis of Simulation-Driven Numerical Performance Modeling Techniques for Application to Analog Circuit Optimization, Proc. International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, 2005.]]Google Scholar
- T. McConaghy, G. Gielen, Double-Strength CAFFEINE: Fast Template-Free Symbolic Modeling of Analog Circuits via Implicit Canonical Form functions and Explicit Introns, Design Automation and Test Europe, Mar 2006 (in press).]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. McKay et al., Non-linear Continuum Regression Using Genetic Programming, in GECCO 1999 (2), pp. 1106--1111.]]Google Scholar
- M. D. McKay, R. J. Beckman, and W. J. Conover, A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output From a Computer Code, Technometrics, 21(2), 1979, pp. 239--245.]]Google Scholar
- P. Nordin, A Compiling Genetic Programming System that Directly Manipulates the Machine Code, Advances in Genetic Programming I, MIT Press, 1994, pp.311--331.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. O'Neill, C. Ryan. Grammatical Evolution: Evolutionary Automatic Programming in an Arbitrary Language. Kluwer, 2003.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. O'Neill et al, Pi Grammatical Evolution, GECCO 2004, LNCS 3103, 2004, pp. 617--629.]]Google Scholar
- Panait, L., Luke, S., Alternative Bloat Control Methods, GECCO 2004, LNCS 3103, 2004, pp. 630--641.]]Google Scholar
- R. Poli, J. Page, W. B. Langdon, Smooth Uniform Crossover, Sub-Machine Code GP and Demes, GECCO 1999, vol 2, July 1999, pp. 1162--1169.]]Google Scholar
- D. E. Rumelhart et al., Learning Internal Representations by Error Propagation. Parallel Distributed Processing Vol I, MIT Press, 1986.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Spencer, Automatic Generation of Programs for Crawling and Walking, Advances in Genetic Programming, MIT Press, Chapter 15, pp. 335--353.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. B. Tickle et. al, Lessons from Past, Current Issues and Future Research Directions in Extracting the Knowledge Embedded in Artificial Neural Networks, Neural Hybrid Systems, Springer Verlag, 1999.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Topchy, W. F. Punch, Faster Genetic Programming Based on Local Gradient Search of Numeric Leaf Values, GECCO 2001, 2001, pp. 155--162.]]Google Scholar
- V. Vassilev, J. Miller, The Advantages of Landscape Neutrality in Digital Circuit Evolution, ICES 2000, pp. 252--263.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. A. Whigham, Grammatically-based Genetic Programming, Proc. Workshop on GP: From Theory to Real-World Applications, Tahoe City, CA, 1995.]]Google Scholar
- X. Yao, Y. Liu, G. Lin, Evolutionary Programming Made Faster, IEEE Trans. Ev. Comp. 3(2), July 1999, pp. 82--102.]]Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Canonical form functions as a simple means for genetic programming to evolve human-interpretable functions
Recommendations
Symbolic Regression by Grammar-based Multi-Gene Genetic Programming
GECCO Companion '15: Proceedings of the Companion Publication of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary ComputationGrammatical Evolution is an algorithm of Genetic Programming but it is capable of evolving programs in an arbitrary language given by a user-provided context-free grammar. We present a way how to apply Multi-Gene idea, known from Multi-Gene Genetic ...
Grammar-based Genetic Programming: a survey
Grammar formalisms are one of the key representation structures in Computer Science. So it is not surprising that they have also become important as a method for formalizing constraints in Genetic Programming (GP). Practical grammar-based GP systems ...
Incorporating learning probabilistic context-sensitive grammar in genetic programming for efficient evolution and adaptation of snakebot
EuroGP'05: Proceedings of the 8th European conference on Genetic ProgrammingIn this work we propose an approach of incorporating learning probabilistic context-sensitive grammar (LPCSG) in genetic programming (GP) employed for evolution and adaptation of locomotion gaits of simulated snake-like robot (Snakebot). In our approach ...
Comments