Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

GP-DMD: a genetic programming variant with dynamic management of diversity

  • Published:
Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The proper management of diversity is essential to the success of Evolutionary Algorithms. Specifically, methods that explicitly relate the amount of diversity maintained in the population to the stopping criterion and elapsed period of execution, with the aim of attaining a gradual shift from exploration to exploitation, have been particularly successful. However, in the area of Genetic Programming, the performance of this design principle has not been studied. In this paper, a novel Genetic Programming method, Genetic Programming with Dynamic Management of Diversity (GP-DMD), is presented. GP-DMD applies this design principle through a replacement strategy that combines penalties based on distance-like functions with a multi-objective Pareto selection based on accuracy and simplicity. The proposed general method was adapted to the well-established Symbolic Regression benchmark problem using tree-based Genetic Programming. Several state-of-the-art diversity management approaches were considered for the experimental validation, and the results obtained showcase the improvements both in terms of mean square error and size. The effects of GP-DMD on the dynamics of the population are also analyzed, revealing the reasons for its superiority. As in other fields of Evolutionary Computation, this design principle contributes significantly to the area of Genetic Programming.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://codingcompetitions.withgoogle.com/hashcode/.

  2. The selected components are straightforward and commonly used and, although different choices are possible, the core idea is that all algorithms share the same selection in most components.

  3. Note that this decision is probably the most difficult one when adapting GP-DMD to other applications. In the experimental validation, some results with alternative distance-like functions are also presented.

  4. https://gitlab.com/nifr91/genetic-programming

  5. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5009057

  6. These instances belong to different benchmark sets, so they are quite different, and their small sample sizes allow fast runs, meaning that these plots can be easily used in the future for comparison purposes.

References

  1. J.R. Koza, J.R. Koza, Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection, volume 1. MIT press, (1992)

  2. R. Poli, J. Koza, Genetic programming, in Search Methodologies: Introductory Tutorials in Optimization and Decision Support Techniques. ed. by E.K. Burke, G. Kendall (Springer, Boston, 2014), pp. 143–185

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. K. Nag, N.R. Pal, Genetic programming for classification and feature selection. in Evolutionary and swarm intelligence algorithms, Springer International Publishing, Cham, (2019), pp. 119–141

  4. K. Krawiec, Behavioral Program Synthesis with Genetic Programming, vol. 618 (Springer, 2016)

  5. I. Azaria, A. Elyasaf, M. Sipper, Evolving artificial general intelligence for video game controllers, in Genetic Programming Theory and Practice XIV. ed. by R. Riolo, B. Worzel, B. Goldman, B. Tozier (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018), pp. 53–63

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. C. Segura, A.H. Aguirre, S.I.V. Pena, S.B. Rionda, The importance of proper diversity management in evolutionary algorithms for combinatorial optimization, in NEO 2015: Results of the Numerical and Evolutionary Optimization Workshop NEO 2015 held at September 23–25 2015 in Tijuana Mexico. ed. by O. Schutze, L. Trujillo, P. Legrand, Y. Maldonado (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017), pp. 121–148

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. M. Crepinsek, S.-H. Liu, M. Mernik, Exploration and exploitation in evolutionary algorithms: a survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 45(3), 1–33 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. C. Segura, A. Hernández-Aguirre, F. Luna, E. Alba, Improving diversity in evolutionary algorithms: new best solutions for frequency assignment. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 21(4), 539–553 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. C. Segura, S.B. Rionda, A.H. Aguirre, S.I.V. Pena, A novel diversity-based evolutionary algorithm for the traveling salesman problem. in Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO ’15, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, (2015). pp. 489–496

  10. J.C. Castillo, C. Segura, Differential evolution with enhanced diversity maintenance. Opt. Lett. 14(6), 1471–1490 (2020)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. J. Chacon, C. Segura, Analysis and enhancement of simulated binary crossover. in 2018 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), pp. 1–8, (2018)

  12. E. Burke, S. Gustafson, G. Kendall, N. Krasnogor, Advanced population diversity measures in genetic programming, in Parallel Problem Solving from Nature: PPSN VII. ed. by J.J.M. Guervos, P. Adamidis, H.-G. Beyer, H.-P. Schwefel, J.-L. Fernandez-Villacan (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2002), pp. 341–350

    Google Scholar 

  13. G. Squillero, A. Tonda, Divergence of character and premature convergence: a survey of methodologies for promoting diversity in evolutionary optimization. Inf. Sci. 329, 782–799 (2016). (Special issue on Discovery ScienceSpecial issue on Discovery Science)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. N.T. Hien, N.X. Hoai, A brief overview of population diversity measures in genetic programming. in Proc. 3rd Asian-Pacific Workshop on Genetic Programming, Hanoi, Vietnam, pp. 128–139. Citeseer, (2006)

  15. A.R. Burks, W.F. Punch, An efficient structural diversity technique for genetic programming. in Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO ’15, New York, NY, USA, (2015). Association for Computing Machinery, page 991–998

  16. E.K. Burke, S. Gustafson, G. Kendall, Diversity in genetic programming: an analysis of measures and correlation with fitness. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 8(1), 47–62 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. U.-M. OReilly, J. Kelly, E. Hemberg, Improving genetic programming with novel exploration: exploitation control. Eur. Conf. Genet. Progr. 11451, 64–80 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  18. M. Keijzer, Efficiently Representing Populations in Genetic Programming (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1996), pp. 259–278

    Google Scholar 

  19. M. Gaudesi, G. Squillero, A. Tonda, Universal information distance for genetic programming. in Proceedings of the Companion Publication of the 2014 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO Comp ’14, New York, NY, USA, 2014. Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 137–138

  20. L. Vanneschi, M. Castelli, S. Silva, A survey of semantic methods in genetic programming. Genet. Progr. Evol. Mach. 15(2), 195–214 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. G. Folino, C. Pizzuti, G. Spezzano, L. Vanneschi, M. Tomassin, Diversity analysis in cellular and multipopulation genetic programming. In The 2003 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2003. CEC ’03, (2003) vol. 1, pp. 305–311

  22. N.Q. Uy, N.X. Hoai, M. ONeill, R.I. McKay, E. Galvan-Lopez, Semantically-based crossover in genetic programming: application to real-valued symbolic regression. Genet. Progr. Evol. Mach. 12(2), 91–119 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Q.U. Nguyen, X.H. Nguyen, M. Oneill, A. Agapitos, An investigation of fitness sharing with semantic and syntactic distance metrics. in European Conference on Genetic Programming, Springer, (2012), Vol. 7244, pp. 109–120

  24. J.P. Rosca, Entropy-driven adaptive representation. in Proceedings of the workshop on genetic programming: From theory to real-world applications, vol. 9, Tahoe City, California, USA, (1995). Citeseer

  25. W. La Cava, L. Spector, and K. Danai, Epsilon-lexicase selection for regression. in Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference 2016, GECCO ’16, New York, NY, USA, (2016). Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 741–748

  26. B. Metevier, A.K. Saini, L. Spector, Lexicase Selection Beyond Genetic Programming (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019), pp. 123–136

    Google Scholar 

  27. E. Galvan-Lopez, B. Cody-Kenny, L. Trujillo, A. Kattan, Using semantics in the selection mechanism in genetic programming: a simple method for promoting semantic diversity. in 2013 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, (2013), pp. 2972–2979

  28. P. Day, A.K. Nandi, Binary string fitness characterization and comparative partner selection in genetic programming. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 12(6), 724–735 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. A.K. Nandi, M.W. Aslam, Z. Zhu, Diverse partner selection with brood recombination in genetic programming. Appl. Soft Comput. 67, 558–566 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. E.D. de Jong, R.A. Watson, J.B. Pollack, Reducing bloat and promoting diversity using multi-objective methods. in Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO’01, San Francisco, CA, USA, (2001). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, pp. 11–18

  31. M. Schmidt, H. Lipson, Age-Fitness Pareto Optimization (Springer, New York, 2011), pp. 129–146

    Google Scholar 

  32. J. Grefenstette, Genetic algorithms for changing environments. in Parallel Problem Solving from Nature 2, Elsevier, (1992), pp. 137–144

  33. A.R. Burks, W.F. Punch, An analysis of the genetic marker diversity algorithm for genetic programming. Genet. Progr. Evol. Mach. 18(2), 213–245 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. N.F. McPhee, N.J. Hopper, Analysis of genetic diversity through population history. in Proceedings of the 1st Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation - Volume 2, GECCO’99, San Francisco, CA, USA, (1999). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, pp. 1112–1120

  35. B. Cao, Z. Jiang, Increasing diversity and controlling bloat in linear genetic programming. in 2016 3rd International Conference on Information Science and Control Engineering (ICISCE), (2016), pp. 414–419

  36. G.S. Hornby, A Steady-State Version of the Age-Layered Population Structure EA (Springer, US, Boston, MA, 2010), pp. 87–102

    Google Scholar 

  37. A.R. Burks, W.F. Punch, An investigation of hybrid structural and behavioral diversity methods in genetic programming, in Genetic Programming Theory and Practice XIV. ed. by R. Riolo, B. Worzel, B. Goldman, B. Tozier (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018), pp. 19–34

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. E.R. Ruiz, C. Segura, Memetic algorithm with Hungarian matching based crossover and diversity preservation. Comput. Sist. 22(2), 07 (2018)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  39. D.R. White, J. Mdermott, M. Castelli, L. Manzoni, B.W. Goldman, G. Kronberger, W. Jaskowski, U.-M. OReilly, S. Luke, Better GP benchmarks: community survey results and proposals. Genet. Progr. Evol. Mach. 14(1), 3–29 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. P. Orzechowski, W La Cava, J.H. Moore, Where are we now? a large benchmark study of recent symbolic regression methods. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO ’18, New York, NY, USA, (2018). Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 1183–1190

  41. J. Zegklitz and P. Posik, Benchmarking state-of-the-art symbolic regression alrogirhms. Genet. Progr. Evol. Mach., pp. 1–29, (2020)

  42. I. Arnaldo, K. Krawiec, U-M OReilly, Multiple regression genetic programming. in Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO ’14, New York, NY, USA, (2014). Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 879–886

  43. J. McDermott, D.R. White, S. Luke, L. Manzoni, M. Castelli, L. Vanneschi, W. Jaskowski, K. Krawiec, R. Harper, K. De Jong, and U-M OReilly, Genetic programming needs better benchmarks. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO ’12, New York, NY, USA, (2012). ACM, pp. 791–798

  44. M. Virgolin, A. De Lorenzo, E. Medvet, F. Randone, Learning a formula of interpretability to learn interpretable formulas, in Parallel Problem Solving from Nature: PPSN XVI. ed. by T. Back, M. Preuss, A. Deutz, H. Wang, C. Doerr, M. Emmerich, H. Trautmann (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020), pp. 79–93

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. M. Virgolin, A. De Lorenzo, F. Randone, E. Medvet, M. Wahde, Model learning with personalized interpretability estimation (ml-pie). In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion, GECCO ’21, New York, NY, USA, (2021). Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 1355–1364

  46. E.D. De Jong, J.B. Pollack, Multi-objective methods for tree size control. Genet. Progr. Evol. Mach. 4(3), 211–233 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. E.P. Bezier, S. Sioussiou, Semi-automatic system for defining free-form curves and surfaces. Comput.-Aid. Des. 15(2), 65–72 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors acknowledge the financial support from CONACyT through the “Ciencia Básica” project no. 285599 and the support from “Laboratorio de Supercómputo del Bajio” through the project 300832 from CONACyT.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlos Segura.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 96 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nieto-Fuentes, R., Segura, C. GP-DMD: a genetic programming variant with dynamic management of diversity. Genet Program Evolvable Mach 23, 279–304 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10710-021-09426-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10710-021-09426-4

Keywords

Navigation