Léo Françoso Dal Piccol Sotto
Franz Rothlauf
ABSTRACT
In linear variants of Genetic Programming (GP) like linear genetic programming (LGP), structural introns can emerge, which are nodes that are not connected to the final output and do not contribute to the output of a program. There are claims that such non-effective code is beneficial for search, as it can store relevant and important evolved information that can be reactivated in later search phases. Furthermore, introns can increase diversity, which leads to higher GP performance. This paper studies the role of non-effective code by comparing the performance of LGP variants that deal differently with non-effective code for standard symbolic regression problems. As we find no decrease in performance when removing or randomizing structural introns in each generation of a LGP run, we have to reject the hypothesis that structural introns increase LGP performance by preserving meaningful sub-structures. Our results indicate that there is no important information stored in structural introns. In contrast, we find evidence that the increase of diversity due to structural introns positively affects LGP performance.
- M. Brameier and W. Banzhaf. 2001. A comparison of linear genetic programming and neural networks in medical data mining. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 5, 1 (Feb 2001), 17--26. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- M. Brameier and W. Banzhaf. 2001. Effective Linear Genetic Programming. Technical Report. Department of Computer Science, University of Dortmund, 44221 Dortmund, Germany.Google Scholar
- Markus Brameier and Wolfgang Banzhaf. 2002. Explicit Control of Diversity and Effective Variation Distance in Linear Genetic Programming. In Genetic Programming, James A. Foster, Evelyne Lutton, Julian Miller, Conor Ryan, and Andrea Tettamanzi (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 37--49. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Markus Brameier and Wolfgang Banzhaf. 2003. Neutral Variations Cause Bloat in Linear GP. In Genetic Programming, Conor Ryan, Terence Soule, Maarten Keijzer, Edward Tsang, Riccardo Poli, and Ernesto Costa (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 286--296. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. F. Brameier and W. Banzhaf. 2007. Linear genetic programming. Springer. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Collins. 2006. Finding needles in haystacks is harder with neutrality. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 7, 2 (Jun 2006), 131--144. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Brian W. Goldman and William F. Punch. 2013. Length bias and search limitations in cartesian genetic programming. In GECCO '13: Proceeding of the fifteenth annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation conference. ACM, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 933--940. https://doi.org/ Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. W. Goldman and W. F. Punch. 2015. Analysis of Cartesian Genetic Programming Evolutionary Mechanisms. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 19, 3 (June 2015), 359--373.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ting Hu and Wolfgang Banzhaf. 2016. Neutrality, Robustness, and Evolvability in Genetic Programming. In Genetic Programming Theory and Practice XIV, Rick Riolo, Bill Worzel, Brian Goldman, and Bill Tozier (Eds.). Springer, Ann Arbor, USA. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
- Joshua D. Knowles and Richard A. Watson. 2002. On the Utility of Redundant Encodings in Mutation-Based Evolutionary Search. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature --- PPSN VII, Juan Julián Merelo Guervós, Panagiotis Adamidis, Hans-Georg Beyer, Hans-Paul Schwefel, and José-Luis Fernández-Villacañas (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 88--98. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. R. Koza. 1992. Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- James McDermott, David R. White, Sean Luke, Luca Manzoni, Mauro Castelli, Leonardo Vanneschi, Wojciech Jaskowski, Krzysztof Krawiec, Robin Harper, Kenneth De Jong, and Una-May O'Reilly. 2012. Genetic Programming Needs Better Benchmarks. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GECCO '12). 791--798. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Julian F. Miller. 1999. An empirical study of the efficiency of learning boolean functions using a Cartesian Genetic Programming approach. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, Wolfgang Banzhaf, Jason Daida, Agoston E. Eiben, Max H. Garzon, Vasant Honavar, Mark Jakiela, and Robert E. Smith (Eds.), Vol. 2. Morgan Kaufmann, Orlando, Florida, USA, 1135--1142. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. F. Miller and S. L. Smith. 2006. Redundancy and computational efficiency in Cartesian genetic programming. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 10, 2 (April 2006), 167--174. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Julian F. Miller and Peter Thomson. 2000. Cartesian Genetic Programming. In Genetic Programming, Riccardo Poli, Wolfgang Banzhaf, William B. Langdon, Julian Miller, Peter Nordin, and Terence C. Fogarty (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 121--132. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Miguel Nicolau, Alexandros Agapitos, Michael O'Neill, and Anthony Brabazon. 2015. Guidelines for defining benchmark problems in Genetic Programming. In Proceedings of 2015 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC 2015). Sendai, Japan, 1152--1159.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Peter Nordin, Frank Francone, and Wolfgang Banzhaf. 1995. Explicitly Defined Introns and Destructive Crossover in Genetic Programming. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Genetic Programming: From Theory to Real-World Applications, Justinian P. Rosca (Ed.). Tahoe City, California, USA, 6--22.Google Scholar
- M. O'Neill and C. Ryan. 2001. Grammatical evolution. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 5, 4 (Aug 2001), 349--358. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Rothlauf. 2006. Representations for Genetic and Evolutionary Algorithms (2nd ed.). Springer, Heidelberg. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Peter W. H. Smith and Kim Harries. 1998. Code Growth, Explicitly Defined Introns, and Alternative Selection Schemes. Evol. Comput. 6, 4 (1998), 339--360. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Terence Soule. 2002. Exons and Code Growth in Genetic Programming. In Genetic Programming, James A. Foster, Evelyne Lutton, Julian Miller, Conor Ryan, and Andrea Tettamanzi (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 142--151. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Suttasupa, S. Rungraungsilp, S. Pinyopan, P. Wungchusunti, and P. Chongstitvatana. 2012. A comparative study of linear encoding in Genetic Programming. In 2011 Ninth International Conference on ICT and Knowledge Engineering. 13--17.Google Scholar
- Andrew James Turner and Julian Francis Miller. 2014. Cartesian Genetic Programming: Why No Bloat?. In Genetic Programming, Miguel Nicolau, Krzysztof Krawiec, Malcolm I. Heywood, Mauro Castelli, Pablo García-Sánchez, Juan J. Merelo, Victor M. Rivas Santos, and Kevin Sim (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 222--233. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andrew James Turner and Julian Francis Miller. 2015. Neutral genetic drift: an investigation using Cartesian Genetic Programming. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 16, 4 (Dec 2015), 531--558. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Q. Uy, N. X. Hoai, M. O'Neill, R. I. Mckay, and E. Galvan-Lopez. 2011. Semantically-based Crossover in Genetic Programming: Application to Real-valued Symbolic Regression. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 12, 2 (June 2011), 91--119. 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
- David R. White, James McDermott, Mauro Castelli, Luca Manzoni, Brian W. Goldman, Gabriel Kronberger, Wojciech Jaskowski, Una-May O'Reilly, and Sean Luke. 2013. Better GP benchmarks: community survey results and proposals. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 14, 1 (March 2013), 3--29. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Garnett Wilson and Wolfgang Banzhaf. 2008. A Comparison of Cartesian Genetic Programming and Linear Genetic Programming. In Genetic Programming, Michael O'Neill, Leonardo Vanneschi, Steven Gustafson, Anna Isabel Esparcia Alcázar, Ivanoe De Falco, Antonio Della Cioppa, and Ernesto Tarantino (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 182--193. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tina Yu and Julian Miller. 2002. Finding Needles in Haystacks Is Not Hard with Neutrality. In Genetic Programming, James A. Foster, Evelyne Lutton, Julian Miller, Conor Ryan, and Andrea Tettamanzi (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 13--25. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tina Yu and Julian F. Miller. 2001. Neutrality and the Evolvability of Boolean Function Landscape. In Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Genetic Programming (EuroGP '01). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 204--217. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=646809.704083 Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- On the role of non-effective code in linear genetic programming
Recommendations
A study on graph representations for genetic programming
GECCO '20: Proceedings of the 2020 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation ConferenceGraph representations promise several desirable properties for Genetic Programming (GP); multiple-output programs, natural representations of code reuse and, in many cases, an innate mechanism for neutral drift. Each graph GP technique provides a ...
Studying bloat control and maintenance of effective code in linear genetic programming for symbolic regression
Linear Genetic Programming (LGP) is an Evolutionary Computation algorithm, inspired in the Genetic Programming (GP) algorithm. Instead of using the standard tree representation of GP, LGP evolves a linear program, which causes a graph-based data flow ...
A comparison of Cartesian genetic programming and linear genetic programming
EuroGP'08: Proceedings of the 11th European conference on Genetic programmingTwo prominent genetic programming approaches are the graph-based Cartesian Genetic Programming (CGP) and Linear Genetic Programming (LGP). Recently, a formal algorithm for constructing a directed acyclic graph (DAG) from a classical LGP instruction ...
Comments