Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

GP-induced and explicit bloating of the seeds in incremental GP improves evolutionary success

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

Abstract

The parsimony control in genetic programming (GP) is one of the limiting factors in the quick evolution of efficient solutions. A variety of parsimony pressure methods have been developed to address this issue. The effects of these methods on the efficiency of evolution are recognized to depend on the characteristics of the applied problem domain. On the other hand, the implications of using parsimony pressure in evolving the seeds for incremental genetic programming (IGP) are still poorly known and remain uninvestigated. In this work we present a study on the cumulative effect of the bloat and the seeding of the initial population on the efficiency of incremental evolution of simulated snake-like robot (Snakebot). In the proposed IGP, the task of coevolving the locomotion gaits and sensing of the bot in a challenging environment is decomposed into two sub-tasks, implemented as two consecutive evolutionary stages. First, to evolve the pools of sensorless Snakebots, we use GP featuring the following three bloat-control methods: (1) linear parametric parsimony pressure, (2) lexicographic parsimony pressure and (3) no bloat control. During the second stage of IGP, we use these pools to seed the initial population of Snakebots applying two methods of seeding: canonical seeding and seeding inspired by genetic transposition (GT).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. E. Alfaro-Cid, J.J. Merelo, de F.F. Vega, A.I. Esparcia-Alcazar, K. Sharman, Bloat control operators and diversity in genetic programming: A comparative study. Evol. Comput. 18, 2–305332 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. W. Beaudoin, S. Verel, P. Collard, C. Escazu. Deceptiveness and neutrality: The nd family of fitness landscapes. In GECCO 2006: Proceedings of the 2006 conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, pp. 507–514 (2006)

  3. M. Brameier and W. Banzhaf. Neutral variations cause bloat in linear gp. In Proceedings of the 6th European conference on Genetic programming, EuroGP’03, (Springer, Verlag, 2003), pp. 286–296

  4. M. Collins. Finding needles in haystacks is harder with neutrality. In GECCO 2005: Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, vol. 2, pp. 1613–1618, 2005.

  5. B. Doerr, M. Gnewuch, N. Hebbinghaus, and F. Neumann. A rigorous view on neutrality. In Evolutionary Computation, 2007. CEC 2007. IEEE Congress on, pp. 2591 –2597, sept. 2007.

  6. M. Ebner. On the search space of genetic programming and its relation to nature’s search space. In Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC 99, pp. 1357–1361, 1999.

  7. E. Galván-López and R. Poli. An empirical investigation of how and why neutrality affects evolutionary search. In Proceedings of the 8th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, GECCO ’06, pp. 1149–1156, New York, 2006. ACM.

  8. E. Galv’an-L’opez, R. Poli, A. Kattan, M. O’Neill, A. Brabazon, Neutrality in evolutionary algorithms… what do we know?. Evol. Syst. 2, 145–163 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. S. Gelly, O. Teytaud, N. Bredeche, M. Schoenauer, Universal Consistency and Bloat in GP. Revue d’Intelligence Artificielle, 20, 805–827 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. F. Gomez, R. Miikkulainen, Incremental evolution of complex general behavior. Adapt. Behav. 5, 5–317 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. M.A. Huynen, P.F. Stadler, W. Fontana (1996) Smoothness within ruggedness: the role of neutrality in adaptation. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 93, pp. 397–401

  12. M. Kimura, The neutral theory of molecular evolution. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. K.E. Kinnear Jr. Fitness landscapes and difficulty in genetic programming. In Evolutionary Computation, 1994. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on, pp 142 –147 vol.1, jun (1994)

  14. J.R. Koza, Genetic programming II: automatic discovery of reusable programs. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1994)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. J.R. Koza, M.A. Keane, J. Yu, F.H. Bennett, W. Mydlowec, Automatic creation of human-competitive programs and controllers by means of genetic programming. Genet. Program. Evolvable Mach. 1, 121–164 (2000)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. T. Kuyucu, I.Tanev, and K. Shimohara. Incremental genetic programming via genetic transpositions for efficient coevolution of locomotion and sensing of simulated snake-like robot. In European Conference on Artificial Life, pp. 439–446 (2011)

  17. W.B. Langdon, P. Nordin. Seeding genetic programming populations. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Genetic Programming, (Springer, London, 2000), pp. 304–315

  18. J. Lobo, J.H. Miller, W. Fontana. Neutrality in technological landscapes. Santa Fe Working Paper, 2004.

  19. S. Luke, L. Panait. Lexicographic parsimony pressure. In GECCO 2002: Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference, (Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, New York, 2002), pp. 829–836.

  20. S. Luke, L. Panait, A comparison of bloat control methods for genetic programming. Evol. Comput. 14, 309–344 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. B. McClintock, The origin and behaviour of mutable loci in maize. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 36, 344–355 (1950)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. H.J. Morowitz, The Emergence of Everything: How the World Became Complex. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002)

    Google Scholar 

  23. S. Nolfi, D. Floreano, O. Miglino, and F. Mondada. How to evolve autonomous robots: different approaches in evolutionary robotics. In 4th International Workshop on Artificial Life. MA: MIT Press (1994)

  24. M. Nowacki, B.P. Higgins, G.M. Maquilan, E.C. Swart, ThomasG. Doak, F. Laura, Landweber. A functional role for transposases in a large eukaryotic genome. Science 324(5929), 935–938 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  25. J.E. Perry. The effect of population enrichment in genetic programming. In Evolutionary Computation, 1994. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence., Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on, pages 456 –461 vol.1, June (1994)

  26. R. Poli and N.F. McPhee. Covariant parsimony pressure for genetic programming. Technical Report CES-480, Department of Computing and Electronic Systems, University of Essex, UK, (2008)

  27. R. Shipman. Genetic redundancy: Desirable or problematic for evolutionary adaptation. In 4th International Conf. on Artificial Neural Networks and Genetic Algorithms (ICANNGA’99), pp.1–11, (1999)

  28. R. Smith. Open Dynamics Engine. http://ode.org/ode-latest-userguide.pdf, (2004)

  29. D.J. Strand, J.F. McDonald, Copia is transcriptionally responsive to environmental stress. Nucleic Acids Res. 13(12), 4401–4410 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. I. Tanev, T. Ray, A. Buller, Automated evolutionary design, robustness and adaptation of sidewinding locomotion of simulated snake-like robot. IEEE Trans. Rob. 21, 632–645 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. I. Tanev and K. Shimohara. Co-evolution of active sensing and locomotion gaits of simulated snake-like robot. In Proceedings of the 10th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, GECCO ’08, pp. 257–264, New York, 2008. ACM

  32. I. Tanev, Dom/xml-based portable genetic representation of the morphology, behavior and communication abilities of evolvable agents. Artif. Life Rob. 8, 52–56 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. R. Thomsen, G.B. Fogel, and T. Krink. A clustal alignment improver using evolutionary algorithms. In Evolutionary Computation, 2002. CEC ’02. Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on, volume 1, pp. 121–126, May (2002)

  34. V.K. Vassilev, Dominic Job, and Julian F. Miller. Towards the automatic design of more efficient digital circuits. In EH ’00: Proceedings of the 2nd NASA/DoD workshop on Evolvable Hardware, page 151, Washington, DC, USA, 2000. IEEE Computer Society

  35. V.K. Vassilev and J.F. Miller. The advantages of landscape neutrality in digital circuit evolution. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Evolvable Systems: From Biology to Hardware, pp. 252–26. Springer, Berlin, 2000.

  36. A. Wagner, Robustness, evolvability, and neutrality. FEBS Lett. 579(8), 1772–1778 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. C.O. Wilke, J.L. Wang, C. Ofria, R.E. Lenski, C. Adami, Evolution of digital organisms at high mutation rates leads to survival of the flattest. Nature 412, 331–333 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. T. Yu and J.F. Miller. The role of neutral and adaptive mutation in an evolutionary search on the onemax problem. In GECCO Late Breaking Papers’02, pp. 512–519, (2002)

Download references

Acknowledgments

The presented work is part of a project funded by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Doshisha University, Kyotanabe, Japan

    Ivan Tanev, Tüze Kuyucu & Katsunori Shimohara

Authors
  1. Ivan Tanev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tüze Kuyucu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katsunori Shimohara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tüze Kuyucu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tanev, I., Kuyucu, T. & Shimohara, K. GP-induced and explicit bloating of the seeds in incremental GP improves evolutionary success. Genet Program Evolvable Mach 15, 37–60 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10710-013-9192-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10710-013-9192-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation