skip to main content
10.1145/2739480.2754643acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Strength Through Diversity: Disaggregation and Multi-Objectivisation Approaches for Genetic Programming

Published:11 July 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

An underlying problem in genetic programming (GP) is how to ensure sufficient useful diversity in the population during search. Having a wide range of diverse (sub)component structures available for recombination and/or mutation is important in preventing premature converge. We propose two new fitness disaggregation approaches that make explicit use of the information in the test cases (i.e., program semantics) to preserve diversity in the population. The first method preserves the best programs which pass each individual test case, the second preserves those which are non-dominated across test cases (multi-objectivisation). We use these in standard GP, and compare them to using standard fitness sharing, and using standard (aggregate) fitness in tournament selection. We also examine the effect of including a simple anti-bloat criterion in the selection mechanism. We find that the non-domination approach, employing anti-bloat, significantly speeds up convergence to the optimum on a range of standard Boolean test problems. Furthermore, its best performance occurs with a considerably smaller population size than typically employed in GP.

References

  1. R. Allmendinger, J. Handl, and J. Knowles. Multiobjective optimization: When objectives exhibit non-uniform latencies. European Journal of Operational Research, 243(2):497--513, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. N. Altwaijry and M. Menai. Data structures in multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 27(6):1197--1210, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. L. Beadle and C. Johnson. Semantically driven crossover in genetic programming. In IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pages 111--116, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. D. Corne and J. Knowles. Techniques for Highly Multiobjective Optimisation: Some Nondominated Points are Better than Others. In Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, pages 773--780. ACM, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. E. Galvan-Lopez, B. Cody-Kenny, L. Trujillo, and A. Kattan. Using semantics in the selection mechanism in Genetic Programming: A simple method for promoting semantic diversity. In IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pages 2972 -- 2979, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. E. J. Huges. Evolutionary many-objective optimisation: many once or one many? In IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, volume 1, pages 222--227. IEEE, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. D. Jackson. Promoting phenotypic diversity in genetic programming. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature - PPSN XI, volume 6239 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 472--481. Springer, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. J. Knowles, R. Watson, and D. Corne. Reducing local optima in single-objective problems by multi-objectivization. In Evolutionary Multi-criterion Optimization, EMO'01, pages 269--283. Springer, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. K. Krawiec and U.-M. O'Reilly. Behavioral programming: a broader and more detailed take on semantic GP. In Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. K. Krawiec and T. Pawlak. Locally geometric semantic crossover: a study on the roles of Semantics and homology in recombination operators. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 14:31--63, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. R. I. McKay. Fitness sharing in genetic programming. In Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, pages 435--442. Morgan Kaufmann, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. N. F. McPhee, B. Ohs, and T. Hutchison. Semantic building blocks in genetic programming. In 11th European conference on Genetic programming, pages 134--145. Springer, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. Moraglio, K. Krawiec, and C. G. Johnson. Geometric semantic genetic programming. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature - PPSN XII, volume 7491 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 21--31. Springer, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Q. U. Nguyen, X. H. Nguyen, and M. O'Neill. Semantic aware crossover for genetic programming: The case for real-valued function regression. In 12th European Conference on Genetic Programming, pages 292--302. Springer, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. R. Poli, W. B. Langdon, and N. McPhee. A field guide to genetic programming. Published viatexttthttp://lulu.com and freely available attexttthttp://www.gp-field-guide.org.uk, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. R. Poli and N. McPhee. Parsimony Pressure Made Easy: Solving the Problem of Bloat in GP. In Y. Borenstein and A. Moraglio, editors, Theory and Principled Methods for the Design of Metaheuristics, Natural Computing Series, chapter 9, pages 181--204. Springer, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. R. C. Purshouse and P. Fleming. Evolutionary many-objective optimisation: An exploratory analysis. In IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, volume 3, pages 2066--2073. IEEE, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. C. Segura, C. A. Coello Coello, G. Miranda, and C. León. Using multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for single-objective optimization. 4OR, 11(3):201--228, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. D. White, J. McDermott, M. Castelli, L. Manzoni, B. Goldman, G. Kronberger, W. Ja\'skowski, U.-M. O'Reilly, and S. Luke. Better GP benchmarks: community survey results and proposals. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 14:3--29, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Strength Through Diversity: Disaggregation and Multi-Objectivisation Approaches 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 '15: Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation
        July 2015
        1496 pages
        ISBN:9781450334723
        DOI:10.1145/2739480

        Copyright © 2015 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 the author(s) 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: 11 July 2015

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        GECCO '15 Paper Acceptance Rate182of505submissions,36%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