skip to main content
10.1145/3321707.3321854acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Promoting semantic diversity in multi-objective genetic programming

Published:13 July 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

The study of semantics in Genetic Programming (GP) has increased dramatically over the last years due to the fact that researchers tend to report a performance increase in GP when semantic diversity is promoted. However, the adoption of semantics in Evolutionary Multi-objective Optimisation (EMO), at large, and in Multi-objective GP (MOGP), in particular, has been very limited and this paper intends to fill this challenging research area. We propose a mechanism wherein a semantic-based distance is used instead of the widely known crowding distance and is also used as an objective to be optimised. To this end, we use two well-known EMO algorithms: NSGA-II and SPEA2. Results on highly unbalanced binary classification tasks indicate that the proposed approach produces more and better results than the rest of the three other approaches used in this work, including the canonical aforementioned EMO algorithms.

References

  1. D.J. Newman A. Asuncion. 2007. UCI Machine Learning Repository. (2007). http://www.ics.uci.edu/$\simmlearn/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. L. Beadle and C.G. Johnson. 2008. Semantically driven crossover in genetic programming. In Evolutionary Computation, 2008. CEC 2008. (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence). 111 --116. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. U. Bhowan, M. Johnston, M. Zhang, and X. Yao. 2013. Evolving Diverse Ensembles Using Genetic Programming for Classification With Unbalanced Data. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 17, 3 (June 2013), 368--386. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. S. Bleuler, M. Brack, L. Thiele, and E. Zitzler. 2001. Multiobjective genetic programming: reducing bloat using SPEA2. In Proceedings of the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE Cat. No.01TH8546), Vol. 1. 536--543 vol. 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlos A. Coello Coello, Gary B. Lamont, and David A. Van Veldhuizen. 2006. Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems (Genetic and Evolutionary Computation). Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Kalyanmoy Deb, Amrit Pratap, Sameer Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan. 2002. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6 (2002), 182--197. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Tiantian Dou and Peter Rockett. 2018. Comparison of semantic-based local search methods for multiobjective genetic programming. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 19, 4 (01 Dec 2018), 535--563. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Stefan Forstenlechner, David Fagan, Miguel Nicolau, and Michael O'Neill. 2018. Towards Effective Semantic Operators for Program Synthesis in Genetic Programming. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1119--1126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. E. Galván-López, B. Cody-Kenny, L. Trujillo, and A. Kattan. 2013. Using semantics in the selection mechanism in Genetic Programming: A simple method for promoting semantic diversity. In 2013 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation. 2972--2979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Edgar Galván-López, Efrén Mezura-Montes, Ouassim Ait ElHara, and Marc Schoenauer. 2016. On the Use of Semantics in Multi-objective Genetic Programming. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature - PPSN XIV: 14th International Conference, Edinburgh, UK, September 17--21, 2016, Proceedings, Julia Handl et al. (Eds.). Springer, 353--363.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Edgar Galván-López, Lucia Vázquez-Mendoza, and Leonardo Trujillo. 2016. Stochastic Semantic-Based Multi-Objective Genetic Programming Optimisation for Classification of Imbalanced Data. In Advances in Soft Computing, Obdulia Pichardo-Lagunas and Sabino Miranda-Jiménez (Eds.). Springer, Chapter 22, 261--272.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. John R. Koza. 1992. Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Nicholas Freitag McPhee, Brian Ohs, and Tyler Hutchison. 2008. Semantic building blocks in genetic programming. In Proceedings of the 11th European conference on Genetic programming (EuroGP'08). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 134--145. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1792694.1792707 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Alberto Moraglio, Krzysztof Krawiec, and Colin G. Johnson. 2012. Geometric Semantic Genetic Programming. In PPSN (1) (LNCS), Carlos A. Coello Coello, Vincenzo Cutello, Kalyanmoy Deb, Stephanie Forrest, Giuseppe Nicosia, and Mario Pavone (Eds.), Vol. 7491. Springer, 21--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Quang Uy Nguyen, Xuan Hoai Nguyen, and Michael O'Neill. 2009. 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). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 292--302. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. T. P. Pawlak, B. Wieloch, and K. Krawiec. 2015. Semantic Backpropagation for Designing Search Operators in Genetic Programming. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 19, 3 (June 2015), 326--340.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Riccardo Poli and Edgar Galván-López. 2007. On the Effects of Bit-Wise Neutrality on Fitness Distance Correlation, Phenotypic Mutation Rates and Problem Hardness. In Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, Christopher R. Stephens, Marc Toussaint, Darrell Whitley, and Peter F. Stadler (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 138--164. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. L. Shao, L. Liu, and X. Li. 2014. Feature Learning for Image Classification Via Multiobjective Genetic Programming. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 25, 7 (July 2014), 1359--1371.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Nguyen Quang Uy, Nguyen Xuan Hoai, Michael O'Neill, R. I. McKay, and Edgar Galván-López. 2011. Semantically-based crossover in genetic programming: application to real-valued symbolic regression. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 12, 2 (2011), 91--119. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Nguyen Quang Uy, Michael O'Neill, Nguyen Xuan Hoai, Bob Mckay, and Edgar Galván-López. 2010. Semantic Similarity Based Crossover in GP: The Case for Real-Valued Function Regression. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 170--181. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Leonardo Vanneschi, Mauro Castelli, Luca Manzoni, and Sara Silva. 2013. A New Implementation of Geometric Semantic GP and Its Application to Problems in Pharmacokinetics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 205--216. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Leonardo Vanneschi, Mauro Castelli, and Sara Silva. 2014. A Survey of Semantic Methods in Genetic Programming. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 15, 2 (June 2014), 195--214. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Huimin Zhao. 2007. A multi-objective genetic programming approach to developing Pareto optimal decision trees. Decision Support Systems 43, 3 (2007), 809 -- 826. Integrated Decision Support. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Eckart Zitzler, Dimo Brockhoff, and Lothar Thiele. 2007. The Hypervolume Indicator Revisited: On the Design of Pareto-compliant Indicators Via Weighted Integration. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 862--876. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Eckart Zitzler, Marco Laumanns, and Lothar Thiele. 2001. SPEA2: Improving the Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Promoting semantic diversity in multi-objective 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 '19: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
      July 2019
      1545 pages
      ISBN:9781450361118
      DOI:10.1145/3321707

      Copyright © 2019 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: 13 July 2019

      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