David Hodan
ABSTRACT
Despite many successful applications, Cartesian Genetic Programming (CGP) suffers from limited scalability, especially when used for evolutionary circuit design. Considering the multiplier design problem, for example, the 5×5-bit multiplier represents the most complex circuit evolved from a randomly generated initial population. The efficiency of CGP highly depends on the performance of the point mutation operator, however, this operator is purely stochastic. This contrasts with the recent developments in Genetic Programming (GP), where advanced informed approaches such as semantic-aware operators are incorporated to improve the search space exploration capability of GP. In this paper, we propose a semantically-oriented mutation operator (SOMO) suitable for the evolutionary design of combinational circuits. SOMO uses semantics to determine the best value for each mutated gene. Compared to the common CGP and its variants as well as the recent versions of Semantic GP, the proposed method converges on common Boolean benchmarks substantially faster while keeping the phenotype size relatively small. The successfully evolved instances presented in this paper include 10-bit parity, 10+10-bit adder and 5×5-bit multiplier. The most complex circuits were evolved in less than one hour with a single-thread implementation running on a common CPU.
- L. Beadle and C. G. Johnson. 2009. Semantically driven mutation in genetic programming. In 2009 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation. 1336--1342. Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Mauro Castelli, Sara Silva, and Leonardo Vanneschi. 2015. A C++ framework for geometric semantic genetic programming. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 16, 1 (01 Mar 2015), 73--81. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Janet Clegg, James Alfred Walker, and Julian Frances Miller. 2007. A New Crossover Technique for Cartesian Genetic Programming. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (London, England) (GECCO '07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1580--1587. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Coello Carlos A. Coello, A. D. Christiansen, and A. Hernández Aguirre. 1998. Automated Design of Combinational Logic Circuits by Genetic Algorithms. In Artificial Neural Nets and Genetic Algorithms: Proceedings of the International Conference in Norwich, U.K., 1997. Springer Vienna, Vienna, 333--336. Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. E. da Silva and H. S. Bernardino. 2018. Cartesian Genetic Programming with Crossover for Designing Combinational Logic Circuits. In 2018 7th Brazilian Conference on Intelligent Systems (BRACIS). 145--150. Google ScholarCross Ref
- José Eduardo H. da Silva, Lucas A. M. de Souza, and Heder S. Bernardino. 2019. Cartesian Genetic Programming with Guided and Single Active Mutations for Designing Combinational Logic Circuits. In Machine Learning, Optimization, and Data Science, Giuseppe Nicosia, Panos Pardalos, Renato Umeton, Giovanni Giuffrida, and Vincenzo Sciacca (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 396--408.Google Scholar
- Robyn Ffrancon and Marc Schoenauer. 2015. Memetic Semantic Genetic Programming. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (Madrid, Spain) (GECCO '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1023--1030. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B.W. Goldman and W.F. Punch. 2013. Reducing wasted evaluations in cartesian genetic programming. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7831 LNCS (2013), 61--72. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Brian W Goldman and William F Punch. 2013. Length bias and search limitations in Cartesian genetic programming. In Proceedings of the 15th annual conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. 933--940.Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. W. Goldman and W. F. Punch. 2015. Analysis of Cartesian Genetic Programming's Evolutionary Mechanisms. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 19, 3 (June 2015), 359--373. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Radek Hrbacek and Lukas Sekanina. 2014. Towards Highly Optimized Cartesian Genetic Programming: From Sequential via SIMD and Thread to Massive Parallel Implementation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (GECCO '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1015--1022. Google ScholarDigital Library
- John R. Koza. 1992. Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Joao Francisco B. S. Martins, Luiz Otavio V. B. Oliveira, Luis F. Miranda, Felipe Casadei, and Gisele L. Pappa. 2018. Solving the Exponential Growth of Symbolic Regression Trees in Geometric Semantic Genetic Programming. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (Kyoto, Japan) (GECCO '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1151--1158. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Miller and P. Thomson. 2000. Cartesian Genetic Programming. In Proc. of the 3rd European Conference on Genetic Programming EuroGP2000 (LNCS), Vol. 1802. Springer, 121--132.Google Scholar
- Julian Francis Miller. 2019. Cartesian genetic programming: its status and future. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines (06 Aug 2019). Google ScholarCross Ref
- Julian F. Miller, Dominic Job, and Vesselin K. Vassilev. 2000. Principles in the Evolutionary Design of Digital Circuits - Part II. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 1, 3 (2000), 259--288.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Julian F. Miller and Peter Thomson. 2000. Cartesian Genetic Programming. In Genetic Programming. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. F. Miller, P. Thomson, and T. Fogarty. 1998. Designing Electronic Circuits Using Evolutionary Algorithms. Arithmetic Circuits: A Case Study. Wiley, 105--131.Google Scholar
- Alberto Moraglio and Krzysztof Krawiec. 2017. Geometric Semantic Genetic Programming for Recursive Boolean Programs. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (Berlin, Germany) (GECCO '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 993--1000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Alberto Moraglio, Krzysztof Krawiec, and Colin G. Johnson. 2012. Geometric Semantic Genetic Programming. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature - PPSN XII, Carlos A. Coello Coello, Vincenzo Cutello, Kalyanmoy Deb, Stephanie Forrest, Giuseppe Nicosia, and Mario Pavone (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 21--31.Google Scholar
- Tomasz P. Pawlak and Krzysztof Krawiec. 2018. Competent Geometric Semantic Genetic Programming for Symbolic Regression and Boolean Function Synthesis. Evolutionary Computation 26, 2 (2018), 177--212. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lukas Sekanina. 2017. Approximate Computing: An Old Job for Cartesian Genetic Programming? In Inspired by Nature: Essays Presented to Julian F. Miller on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, Susan Stepney and Andrew Adamatzky (Eds.). Emergence, Complexity and Computation, Vol. 28. Springer, Chapter 9, 195--212. https://doi.org/ Google ScholarCross Ref
- Karel Slany and Lukas Sekanina. 2007. Fitness Landscape Analysis and Image Filter Evolution Using Functional-Level CGP. In Proc. of European Conf. on Genetic Programming (LNCS), Vol. 4445. Springer-Verlag, 311--320.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zdenek Vasicek. 2015. Cartesian GP in Optimization of Combinational Circuits with Hundreds of Inputs and Thousands of Gates. In EuroGP'15 (Berlin, DE) (LCNS 9025). Springer International Publishing, 139--150.Google Scholar
- Zdenek Vasicek. 2017. Bridging the Gap Between Evolvable Hardware and Industry Using Cartesian Genetic Programming. In Inspired by Nature: Essays Presented to Julian F. Miller on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, Susan Stepney and Andrew Adamatzky (Eds.). Emergence, Complexity and Computation, Vol. 28. Springer, Chapter 2, 39--55. https://doi.org/ Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zdenek Vasicek and Lukas Sekanina. 2014. How to Evolve Complex Combinational Circuits From Scratch?. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Evolvable Systems Proceedings. IEEE, 133--140.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zdenek Vasicek and Karel Slany. 2012. Efficient Phenotype Evaluation in Cartesian Genetic Programming. In Proc. of the 15th European Conference on Genetic Programming (LNCS 7244). Springer Verlag, 266--278.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Vesselin K. Vassilev and Julian F. Miller. 2000. The Advantages of Landscape Neutrality in Digital Circuit Evolution. In Evolvable Systems: From Biology to Hardware, Julian Miller, Adrian Thompson, Peter Thomson, and Terence C. Fogarty (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 252--263.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Semantically-oriented mutation operator in cartesian genetic programming for evolutionary circuit design
Recommendations
Semantically-oriented mutation operator in cartesian genetic programming for evolutionary circuit design
AbstractCartesian genetic programming (CGP) represents the most efficient method for the evolution of digital circuits. Despite many successful applications, however, CGP suffers from limited scalability, especially when used for evolutionary circuit ...
Solving real-valued optimisation problems using cartesian genetic programming
GECCO '07: Proceedings of the 9th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computationClassical Evolutionary Programming (CEP) and Fast Evolutionary Programming (FEP) have been applied to real-valued function optimisation. Both of these techniques directly evolve the real-values that are the arguments of the real-valued function. In this ...
Balanced Cartesian Genetic Programming via migration and opposition-based learning: application to symbolic regression
The exploration---exploitation trade-off is an important aspect of evolutionary algorithms which determines the efficiency and accuracy of these algorithms. Cartesian Genetic Programming (CGP) is a generalization of the graph based genetic programming. ...
Comments