Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Rule-centred genetic programming (RCGP): an imperialist competitive approach

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Automatic programming is one of the challenging fields of AI to generate solutions for high-level programming problems. There are variant methodologies attempting to introduce an efficient technique which address problems of this domain. In this paper, a novel Rule-Centred Genetic Programming (RCGP) is proposed. RCGP benefits from a series of evolutionary rules to help the algorithm choose intelligent alterations in the chromosome of individuals during the evolution yet preserves its stochastic evolutionary nature. Further, a modified search strategy based on Imperialist Competitive Algorithm (ICA) is employed in RCGP that shows to be significantly effective to deal with various problems which differ in degree of complexity. The proposed method features competitive convergence both in the case of speed and accuracy as well as a simpler mechanism than the several existing GP methods. RCGP is tested on nine benchmark problems which are synthesis and real world. The obtained results indicate that RCGP outperforms recent GP methods and is capable of hybridizing with other types of evolutionary algorithms. The method shows to be competent enough to enhance the quality of automatic programming solutions in both aspects of accuracy and efficiency compared to existing methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Archetti F, Lanzeni S, Messina E, Vanneschi L (2006) Genetic programming for human oral bioavailability of drugs. In: Proceedings of the 8th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, GECCO ’06. ACM, New York, pp 255–262

  2. Ashour A, Alvarez L, Toropov V (2003) Empirical modelling of shear strength of rc deep beams by genetic programming. Comput Struct 81(5):331–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Atashpaz-Gargari E, Lucas C (2007) Imperialist competitive algorithm: an algorithm for optimization inspired by imperialistic competition. In: 2007 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, pp 4661–4667

  4. Azad RMA, Ryan C (2011) Variance based selection to improve test set performance in genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, GECCO ’11. ACM, New York, pp 1315–1322

  5. Castejon F, Carmona EJ (2018) Automatic design of analog electronic circuits using grammatical evolution. Appl Soft Comput 62:1003–1018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Castelli M, Manzoni L, Silva S, Vanneschi L (2011) A quantitative study of learning and generalization in genetic programming. Springer, Berlin, pp 25–36

    Google Scholar 

  7. Castelli M, Vanneschi L, Silva S (2014) Semantic search-based genetic programming and the effect of intron deletion. IEEE Trans Cybern 44(1):103–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen Q, Xue B, Mei Y, Zhang M (2017) Geometric semantic crossover with an angle-aware mating scheme in genetic programming for symbolic regression. In: Genetic programming. Springer, Cham, pp 229–245

  9. Chen Q, Zhang M, Xue B (2017) Feature selection to improve generalization of genetic programming for high-dimensional symbolic regression. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 21(5):792–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cody-Kenny B, Barrett S (2013) Self-focusing genetic programming for software optimisation. In: Proceedings of the 15th annual conference companion on genetic and evolutionary computation, GECCO ’13 Companion. ACM, pp 203–204

  11. Escalante HJ, Garcia-Limon MA, Morales-Reyes A, Graff M, Gomez MMY, Morales EF, Martinez-Carranza J (2015) Term-weighting learning via genetic programming for text classification. Knowledge-Based Systems 83:176–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. García S, Fernández A, Luengo J, Herrera F (2008) A study of statistical techniques and performance measures for genetics-based machine learning: accuracy and interpretability. Soft Comput 13(10):959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Haeri MA, Ebadzadeh MM, Folino G (2015) Improving gp generalization: a variance-based layered learning approach. Genet Program Evolvable Mach 16(1):27–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Haeri MA, Ebadzadeh MM, Folino G (2017) Statistical genetic programming for symbolic regression. Appl Soft Comput 60:447–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Harvey DY, Todd MD (2015) Automated feature design for numeric sequence classification by genetic programming. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 19(4):474–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kan P, Davletaliyev M, Kaufmann H (2017) Discovering new Monte Carlo noise filters with genetic programming. In: EG 2017 - short papers. The Eurographics Association, pp 25–28

  17. Keijzer M (2003) Improving symbolic regression with interval arithmetic and linear scaling. In: Proceedings of the 6th European conference on genetic programming, EuroGP’03. Springer, Berlin, pp 70–82

  18. Kommenda M, Affenzeller M, Burlacu B, Kronberger G, Winkler S (2014) Genetic programming with data migration for symbolic regression. 595, 07

  19. Kommenda M, Affenzeller M, Burlacu B, Kronberger G, Winkler SM (2014) Genetic programming with data migration for symbolic regression. In: Proceedings of the companion publication of the annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, GECCO Comp ’14. ACM, p 2014

  20. Koza JR (1992) Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection. MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Krawiec K, Lichocki P (2009) Approximating geometric crossover in semantic space. In: Proceedings of the 11th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, GECCO ’09. ACM, New York, pp 987–994

  22. Krawiec K, T. Pawlak. (2013) Approximating geometric crossover by semantic backpropagation. In: Proceedings of the 15th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM, pp 941–948

  23. Langdon WB, Poli R (1998) Fitness causes bloat. In: Soft computing in engineering design and manufacturing. Springer, London, pp 13–22

  24. Macedo J, Marques L, E. Costa. (2017) Robotic odour search: evolving a robot’s brain with genetic programming. In: 2017 IEEE international conference on autonomous robot systems and competitions (ICARSC), pp 91–97

  25. McConaghy T, Palmers P, Steyaert M, Gielen GGE (2011) Trustworthy genetic programming-based synthesis of analog circuit topologies using hierarchical domain-specific building blocks. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 15(4):557–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. McDermott J, White DR, Luke S, Manzoni L, Castelli M, Vanneschi L, Jaskowski W, Krawiec K, Harper R, De Jong K, O’Reilly U-M (2012) Genetic programming needs better benchmarks. In: Proceedings of the 14th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, GECCO ’12. ACM, New York, pp 791–798

  27. McPhee NF, Miller JD (1995) Accurate replication in genetic programming. In: ICGA

  28. Moraglio A, Krawiec K, Johnson CG (2012) Geometric semantic genetic programming. Springer, Berlin, pp 21–31

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Nguyen QU, Pham TA, Nguyen XH, McDermott J (2016) Subtree semantic geometric crossover for genetic programming. Genet Program Evolvable Mach 17(1):25–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nguyen TH, Nguyen XH (2012) Learning in stages: a layered learning approach for genetic programming. In: 2012 IEEE RIVF international conference on computing communication technologies, research, innovation, and vision for the future, pp 1–4

  31. Nikolaev NY, Iba H (2001) Regularization approach to inductive genetic programming. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 5(4):359–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pawlak TP, Wieloch B, Krawiec K (2015) Semantic backpropagation for designing search operators in genetic programming. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 19(3):326–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Peled D (2016) Automatic synthesis of code using genetic programming. In: Leveraging applications of formal methods, verification and validation: foundational techniques. Springer, Berlin, pp 182–187

  34. Rissanen J (1978) Modeling by shortest data description. Automatica 14(5):465–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Silva P, Santos CP, Matos V, Costa L (2014) Automatic generation of biped locomotion controllers using genetic programming. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 62(10):1531–1548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Silva S, Vanneschi L (2009) Operator equalisation, bloat and overfitting: a study on human oral bioavailability prediction. In: Proceedings of the 11th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, GECCO ’09. ACM, New York, pp 1115–1122

  37. Silva S, Vanneschi L (2010) State-of-the-art genetic programming for predicting human oral bioavailability of drugs. Springer, Berlin, pp 165–173

  38. Soule T, Foster JA (1998) Removal bias: a new cause of code growth in tree based evolutionary programming. In: 1998 IEEE international conference on evolutionary computation proceedings. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence (Cat. No.98TH8360), pp 781–786

  39. StatLib (2013) Statlib datasets archive

  40. Trujillo L, Silva S, Legrand P, Vanneschi L (2011) An empirical study of functional complexity as an indicator of overfitting in genetic programming . Springer, Berlin, pp 262–273

    Google Scholar 

  41. Trujillo L, Silva S, Legrand P, Vanneschi L (2011) An empirical study of functional complexity as an indicator of overfitting in genetic programming. Genetic Programming, 262–273

  42. Uy N, Hien N, Hoai N, O’Neill M (2010) Improving the generalisation ability of genetic programming with semantic similarity based crossover. In: Genetic programming, volume 6021 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, pp 184–195

  43. Uy NQ, Hoai NX, O’Neill M, McKay RI, Galván-López E (2011) Semantically-based crossover in genetic programming: application to real-valued symbolic regression. Genet Program Evolvable Mach 12(2):91–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Vanneschi L (2010) A comparison of the generalization ability of different genetic programming frameworks, 1–8, 1

  45. Vanneschi L, Castelli M, Silva S (2010) Measuring bloat, overfitting and functional complexity in genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, GECCO ’10. ACM, New York, pp 877–884

  46. Vladislavleva EJ, Smits GF, den Hertog D (2009) Order of nonlinearity as a complexity measure for models generated by symbolic regression via pareto genetic programming. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 13(2):333–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Langdon RPJAFWB, Soule T (1999) The evolution of size and shape, volume 3, chapter 8, pages 163–190. MIT Press, USA

    Google Scholar 

  48. Yeh IC (2013) Concrete compressive strength data set UCL

  49. Zhou Q, Wu C, Zhao W, Hua W, Liu L (2018) A novel auto design method of acoustic filter based on genetic programming. In: Advances in mechanical design. Springer, Singapore, pp 661–690

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maryam Amir Haeri.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hosseini Amini, S.M.H., Abdollahi, M. & Amir Haeri, M. Rule-centred genetic programming (RCGP): an imperialist competitive approach. Appl Intell 50, 2589–2609 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-019-01601-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-019-01601-6

Keywords

Navigation