skip to main content
10.1145/3205651.3208218acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A comparison of semantic-based initialization methods for genetic programming

Published:06 July 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

During the initialization step, a genetic programming (GP) system traditionally creates a population of completely random programs to populate the initial population. These programs almost always perform poorly in terms of their total error---some might not even output the correct data type. In this paper, we present new methods for initialization that attempt to generate programs that are somewhat relevant to the problem being solved and/or increase the initial diversity (both error and behavioral diversity) of the population prior to the GP run. By seeding the population---and thereby eliminating worthless programs and increasing the initial diversity of the population---we hope to improve the performance of the GP system. Here, we present two novel techniques for initialization (Lexicase Seeding and Pareto Seeding) and compare them to a previous method (Enforced Diverse Populations) and traditional, non-seeded initialization. Surprisingly, we found that none of the initialization methods result in significant differences in problem-solving performance or population diversity across five program synthesis benchmark problems. We attribute this lack of difference to our use of lexicase selection, which seems to rapidly converge on similar populations regardless of initialization method.

References

  1. Stefan Forstenlechner, David Fagan, Miguel Nicolau, and Michael O'Neill. 2017. A Grammar Design Pattern for Arbitrary Program Synthesis Problems in Genetic Programming. In 20th European Conference on Genetic Programming. In press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Thomas Helmuth, Nicholas Freitag McPhee, and Lee Spector. 2015. Lexicase Selection For Program Synthesis: A Diversity Analysis. In Genetic Programming Theory and Practice XIII (Genetic and Evolutionary Computation). Springer, Ann Arbor, USA. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Thomas Helmuth, Nicholas Freitag McPhee, and Lee Spector. 2016. Effects of Lexicase and Tournament Selection on Diversity Recovery and Maintenance. In GECCO '16 Companion: Proceedings of the 2016 on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion. ACM, Denver, Colorado, USA, 983--990. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/ Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Thomas Helmuth, Nicholas Freitag McPhee, and Lee Spector. 2016. The Impact of Hyperselection on Lexicase Selection. In GECCO '16: Proceedings of the 2016 on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, Tobias Friedrich (Ed.). ACM. Denver, USA, 717--724. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/ Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Thomas Helmuth and Lee Spector. 2015. General Program Synthesis Benchmark Suite. In GECCO '15: Proceedings of the 2015 on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference. ACM, Madrid, Spain, 1039--1046. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/ Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Thomas Helmuth, Lee Spector, and James Matheson. 2015. Solving Uncompromising Problems with Lexicase Selection. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 19, 5 (Oct. 2015), 630--643. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Thomas Helmuth, Lee Spector, Nicholas Freitag McPhee, and Saul Shanabrook. 2016. Linear Genomes for Structured Programs. In Genetic Programming Theory and Practice XIV (Genetic and Evolutionary Computation). Springer, Ann Arbor. USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. David Jackson. 2010. Phenotypic Diversity in Initial Genetic Programming Populations. In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Genetic Programming, EuroGP 2010 (LNCS), Vol. 6021. Springer, Istanbul, 98--109. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/ Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. John R. Koza. 1992. Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/genetic-programming Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Sean Luke. 2000. Two Fast Tree-Creation Algorithms for Genetic Programming. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 4, 3 (Sept. 2000), 274--283. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/4235/18897/00873237.pdf Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Riccardo Poli, William B. Langdon, and Nicholas Freitag McPhee. 2008. A field guide to genetic programming. Published via http://lulu.com and freely available at http://www.gp-field-guide.org.uk. http://www.gp-field-guide.org.uk (With contributions by J. R. Koza). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Michael Schmidt and Hod Lipson. 2010. Age-Fitness Pareto Optimization. In Genetic Programming Theory and Practice VIII, Rick Riolo, Trent McConaghy. and Ekaterina Vladislavleva (Eds.). Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. Vol. 8. Springer, Ann Arbor, USA, Chapter 8, 129--146. http://www.springer.com/computer/ai/book/978-1-4419-7746-5 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Lee Spector. 2001. Autoconstructive Evolution: Push, PushGP, and Push-pop. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO-2001). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, California, USA, 137--146. http://hampshire.edu/lspector/pubs/ace.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee Spector, Jon Klein, and Maarten Keijzer. 2005. The Push3 execution stack and the evolution of control. In GECCO 2005: Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM Press, Washington DC, USA. 1689--1696. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/ Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A comparison of semantic-based initialization methods for genetic programming

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      GECCO '18: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion
      July 2018
      1968 pages
      ISBN:9781450357647
      DOI:10.1145/3205651

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 6 July 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,669of4,410submissions,38%

      Upcoming Conference

      GECCO '24
      Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
      July 14 - 18, 2024
      Melbourne , VIC , Australia

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader