ABSTRACT
Dynamic primitive granularity control (DPGC) is a promising avenue for improving the performance of genetic programming (GP). However, it remains almost entirely unexplored. Further, it may pose many unique challenges in its design and implementation that traditional GP implementations do not. This paper presents an implementation of DPGC in order to determine what aspects of conventional GP design and implementation require special consideration. There are some common techniques used in GP that have been found here to negatively impact DPGC's ability to improve performance. Parsimony pressure appears to disproportionately penalize low-level primitives, and a mixed-granularity population suffers from heavy biases towards particular granularity levels, seemingly to the detriment of evolution. This paper provides hypotheses as to why these conventional techniques harm DPGC implementations, as well as several potential alternatives for use in the future that may remedy these detrimental effects.
- Aaron S. Pope, Daniel R. Tauritz, and Alexander D. Kent. 2016. Evolving random graph generators: A case for increased algorithmic primitive granularity. IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI). IEEE.Google Scholar
- Matthew A. Martin and Daniel R. Tauritz. 2015. Hyper-Heuristics: A Study On Increasing Primitive-Space. In Proceedings of the Companion Publication of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GECCO Companion '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1051--1058.Google Scholar
- Brian W. Goldman and Daniel R. Tauritz. 2011. Meta-evolved empirical evidence of the effectiveness of dynamic parameters. In Proceedings of the 13th annual conference companion on Genetic and evolutionary computation (GECCO '11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
- Adam Harter, Aaron S. Pope, Daniel R. Tauritz, and Chris Rawlings. 2019. Empirical evidence of the effectiveness of primitive granularity control for hyper-heuristics. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion (GECCO '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1478--1486.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Aaron S. Pope, "The Automated Design of Network Graph Algorithms with Applications in Cybersecurity" Chapter 7, pp. 110--138. PhD diss, Auburn University, 2019Google Scholar
- David J. Montana. "Strongly Typed Genetic Programming," Evolutionary Computation, vol. 3 issue 2, pp 199--230, June 1995.Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal and T. Meyarivan, "A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II," in IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 182--197, April 2002.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Walker M (2001) Introduction to genetic programming. Tech Np: University of Montana, MissoulaGoogle Scholar
- John R. Koza, "Genetic Programming II: Automatic Discovery of Reusable Programs.," in Artificial Life, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 439--441, July 1994.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michael O'Neill, Leonardo Vanneschi, Steven Gustafson, and Wolfgang Banzhaf. 2010. Open issues in genetic programming. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 11, 3--4 (September 2010), 339--363. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Spector, Evolving control structures with automatically defined macros. In Working Notes for the AAAI Symposium on Genetic Programming (MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA, 10--12 Nov 1995), ed. by E.V. Siegel, J.R. Koza (AAAI, 1995), pp. 99--105Google Scholar
- J.P. Rosca, Towards automatic discovery of building blocks in genetic programming. In Working Notes for the AAAI Symposium on Genetic Programming (AAAI, 1995), pp. 78--85Google Scholar
- I. Jonyer, A. Himes, Improving modularity in genetic programming using graph-based data mining. In Proceedings of the 19th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (Melbourne Beach, FL, USA, May 11--13 2006), ed. by G.C.J. Sutcliffe, R.G. Goebel (American Association for Artificial Intelligence, 2006), pp. 556--561Google Scholar
- R. Poli, W. B. Langdon, and N. F. McPhee, A Field Guide to Genetic Programming. Published via http://lulu.com and freely available at http://www.gp-field-guide.org.uk, 2008. (With contributions by J. R. Koza).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Aaron S. Pope and Daniel R. Tauritz. 2020. Automated Design of Multi-Level Network Partitioning Heuristics Employing Self-Adaptive Primitive Granularity Control. In Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO '20), July 8--12, 2020, Cancún, Mexico. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 9 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
Dynamic primitive granularity control: an exploration of unique design considerations
Recommendations
HMXT-GP: an information-theoretic approach to genetic programming that maintains diversity
SAC '11: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM Symposium on Applied ComputingThis paper applies a recent information--theoretic approach to controlling Genetic Algorithms (GAs) called HMXT to tree--based Genetic Programming (GP). HMXT, in a GA domain, requires the setting of selection thresholds in a population and the ...
Evolving choice structures for genetic programming
It is quite difficult but essential for Genetic Programming (GP) to evolve the choice structures. Traditional approaches usually ignore this issue. They define some ''if-structures'' functions according to their problems by combining ''if-else'' ...
Impact of Crossover Bias in Genetic Programming
GECCO '15: Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary ComputationIn tree-based genetic programming (GP) with sub-tree crossover, the parent contributing the root portion of the tree (the root parent) often contributes more to the semantics of the resulting child than the non-root parent. Previous research ...
Comments