skip to main content
10.1145/1830761.1830916acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
tutorial

Fitness landscapes and problem hardness in genetic programming

Published:07 July 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

The performance of searching agents, or metaheuristics, like evolutionary algorithms (genetics algorithms, genetic programming, etc.) or local search algorithms (simulated annealing, tabu search, etc.) depend on some properties of the search space structure. One concept that allows us to analyse the search space is the fitness landscape. In the case of Genetic Programming, defining and handling fitness landscapes is a particularly hard task, given the complexity of the structures being evolved of the genetic operators used. This tutorial presents some general definitions of fitness landscape. Subsequently, we will try to instantiate the concept of fitness landscape to Genetic Programming, discussing problems. The concept of landcsape geometry will be introduced and some of the most common landscape geometries and the dynamics of Genetic Programming on those landscapes will be discussed. After that, the binding between fitness landscapes and problem difficulty will be discussed and a set of measures that characterize the difficulty of a metaheuristic in searching solutions in a fitness landscape are analysed. Among those measures, particular relevance will be given to Fitness Distance Correlation (FDC), Negative Slope Coefficient (NSC), a set of measures bound to the concept of Neutrality and some distance metrics and/or similarity measures that are consistent with the most commonly used genetic operators (in particular the recently defined subtree crossover based distance). Finally, some open questions about fitness landscapes are discussed.

References

  1. J. M. Daida, R. Bertram, S. Stanhope, J. Khoo, S. Chaudhary, O. Chaudhary, What makes a problem GP-hard? Analysis of a tunably difficult problem in genetic programming. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 2:165--191, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. J. M. Daida, H. Li, R. Tang, A. M. Hilss, What makes a problem GP-hard? Validating a hypothesis of structural causes. In R. Poli et al. editors Genetic and Evolutionary Computation - GECCO-2003, volume 2724 of LNCS, pages 1665--1677. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. K. E. Kinnear, Fitness landscapes and difficulty in genetic programming. In Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computing, pages 142--147. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. J. R. Koza, Genetic Programming The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. W. B. Langdon, R. Poli, Foundations of Genetic Programming Springer, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. N. I. Nikolaev, V. Slavov, Concepts of inductive genetic programming. In W. B. Langdon et al. editors, Genetic Programming, Proceedings of EuroGP'1998, volume 1391 of LNCS, pages 49--59. Springer-Verlag, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. M. Tomassini, L. Vanneschi, P. Collard, M. Clergue, A study of fitness-distance correlation as a difficulty measure in genetic programming Evolutionary Computation, 13(2): 213--239, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. L. Vanneschi, M. Tomassini, P. Collard, S. Verel, Negative Slope Coefficient. A measure to characterize genetic programming fitness landscapes In P. Collet et al. editors, Genetic Programming, 9th European Conference, EuroGP 2006, pages 178--189, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. L. Vanneschi, S. Gustafson, G. Mauri, Using subtree crossover distance to investigate genetic programming dynamics. In P. Collet et al. editors, Genetic Programming, 9th European Conference, EuroGP 2006, pages 238--249, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. T. Yu, J. Miller, Neutrality and the evolvability of boolean function landscape. In J. Miller et al., editor, Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Genetic Programming (EuroGP-2001), volume 2038 of LNCS, pages 204--217, Lake Como, Italy, 2001. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York. Lecture notes in Computer Science vol. 2038. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. W. B. Langdon and R. Poli, Why Ants are Hard. In Genetic Programming 1998: Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference Morgan Kaufmann, J. R. Koza et al. editors, pages 193--201, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. S. Gustafson, A. Ekárt, E. K. Burke, G. Kendall, Problem Difficulty and Code Growth in Genetic Programming Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 2004, Volume: 5, Issue: 3, p. 271--290. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  1. Fitness landscapes and problem hardness in genetic programming

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          GECCO '10: Proceedings of the 12th annual conference companion on Genetic and evolutionary computation
          July 2010
          1496 pages
          ISBN:9781450300735
          DOI:10.1145/1830761

          Copyright © 2010 Copyright is held by the author/owner(s)

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 7 July 2010

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • tutorial

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate1,669of4,410submissions,38%

          Upcoming Conference

          GECCO '24
          Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
          July 14 - 18, 2024
          Melbourne , VIC , Australia

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader