Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Balanced Cartesian Genetic Programming via migration and opposition-based learning: application to symbolic regression

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

Abstract

The exploration–exploitation trade-off is an important aspect of evolutionary algorithms which determines the efficiency and accuracy of these algorithms. Cartesian Genetic Programming (CGP) is a generalization of the graph based genetic programming. It is implemented with mutation only and does not have any possibility to share information among solutions. The main goal of this paper is to present an effective method for balancing the exploration and exploitation of CGP referred to as Balanced Cartesian Genetic Programming (BCGP) by incorporating distinctive features from biogeography-based optimization (BBO) and opposition-based learning. To achieve this goal, we apply BBO’s migration operator without considering any modifications in the representation of CGP. This operator has good exploitation ability and can be used to share information among individuals in CGP. In addition, in order to improve the exploration ability of CGP, a new mutation operator is integrated into CGP inspired from the concept of opposition-based learning. Experiments have been conducted on symbolic regression. The experimental results show that the proposed BCGP method outperforms the traditional CGP in terms of accuracy and the convergence speed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. CGP work best using 1 + lambda.

References

  1. A.P. Engelbrecht, Computational Intelligence, an Introduction, 2nd edn. (Wiley, New York, 2007)

  2. T. Weise, Global Optimization AlgorithmsTheory and Application. Available: http://www.it-weise.de, 2009

  3. J.R. Koza, Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1992)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. J.R. Koza, Genetic Programming: A Paradigm for Genetically Breeding Populations of Computer Programs to Solve Problems. Technical Report STAN-CS-90-1314, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, 1990

  5. J.M. Daida, T.F. Bersano-Begey, S.J. Ross, J.F. Vesecky, Evolving feature-extraction algorithms: adapting genetic programming for image analysis in geoscience and remote sensing. Geosci. Remote Sens. Symp. Remote Sens. Sustain. Future 4, 2077–2079 (1996)

  6. D. Howard, S.C. Roberts, Object Detection by Multiple Textural Analyzers. Evolutionary Computation, Washington, DC, vol. 2, pp. 850–854, 6–9 July 1999

  7. M. Kotani, M. Nakai and K. Akazawa, Feature extraction using evolutionary computation. In Evolutionary Computation, Washington, DC, USA, vol. 2, pp. 1230–1236, 6–9 July 1999

  8. J. Koza, Simultaneous discovery of detectors and a way of using the detectors via genetic programming. in IEEE International Conference, vol. 3, pp. 1794–1801, 28 March–1 April, 1993

  9. M.M. Rizki, M.A. Zmuda, L.A. Tamburino, Evolving pattern recognition systems. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6(6), 594–609 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. F. Fernandez, M. Tomassini, L. Vanneschni, Saving computational effort in genetic programming by means of plagues. in Proceedings of the 2003 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 3, pp. 2042–2049, 8–12 Dec 2003

  11. H. Guo, A.K. Nandi, Breast cancer diagnosis using genetic programming generated feature. in 2005 IEEE Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing, pp. 215–220, 28–30 Sept 2005

  12. J.H. Hong, S.B. Cho, The classification of cancer based on DNA microarray data that uses diverse ensemble genetic programming. Artif. Intell. Med. 36(1), 43–58 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. R. Seehuus, Protein motif discovery with linear genetic programming. Knowledge-based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems, PT 3. in Proceedings Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3683, pp. 770–776, 2005

  14. J. Imae, S. Nakatani, J. Takahashi, A design method for optimal controllers of minimax problems: a genetic programming approach. in American Control Conference, vol. 6, pp. 5394–5399, 4–6 June 2003

  15. Y. Jessen, M.A. Keane, J.R. Koza, Automatic design of both topology and tuning of a common parameterized controller for two families of plants using genetic programming. in Proceedings of Eleventh IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Aided Control System Design (CACSD) Conference and Ninth IEEE International Conference on Control Applications (CCA) Conference, vol. 11, pp. 234–242, 25–27 Sept 2000

  16. K.A. Marko, R.J. Hampo, Application of genetic programming to control of vehicle systems. in Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Detroit, MI, USA, vol. 1, pp. 191–195, 29 June–1 July 1992

  17. K.-J. Lee, B.-T. Zhang, Learning Robot Behaviors by Evolving Genetic Programs. Industrial Electronics Society. Control and Instrumentation (IECON-2000), vol. 4, pp. 2867–2872, 2000

  18. M.C. Martin, Genetic programming for real world robot vision. in Intelligent Robots and System, IEEE International Conference, vol. 1, pp. 67–72, 30 Sept–5 Oct 2002

  19. C.H. Messom, M.G. Walker, Evolving cooperative robotic behaviour using distributed genetic programming. Control Autom. Robot. Vision 1, 215–219 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  20. P. Kouchakpour, A. Zaknich, T. Braunl, Population variation in genetic programming. Inf. Sci. 177(17), 3438–3452 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. J.A. Walker, J.F. Miller, Automatic acquisition, evolution and reuse of modules in Cartesian genetic programming. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 12(4), 397–417 (2008)

  22. J. F. Miller, P. Thomson, Cartesian genetic programming. in Proceedings of 3rd European Conference on Genetic Programming (EuroGP 2000), vol. 1802, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 121–132, Edinburgh, 2000

  23. J. Clegg, J.A. Walker, J.F. Miller, A new crossover technique for Cartesian genetic programming. in Proceedings of GECCO, pp. 1580–1587, 2007

  24. D. Simon, Biogeography-based optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 12, 702–713 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. H. Ma, D. Simon, “Blended biogeography-based optimization for constrained optimization. Eng. Appl. AI 24(3), 517–525 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  26. H. Tizhoosh, Opposition-based learning: a new scheme for machine intelligence. in Proceedings of International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Modeling Control and Automation, vol. 1, pp. 695–701, 2005

  27. T. Yu, J.F. Miller, Neutrality and the evolvability of boolean function landscape. in Proceedings on EuroGP, pp. 204–217, 2001

  28. J. F. Miller, What bloat? Cartesian Genetic Programming on Boolean problems. in Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Late Breaking Papers, pp. 295–302, 2001

  29. M. Ergezer, D. Simon, D. Du, Oppositional biogeography-based optimization. in Proceedings on SMC, pp. 1009–1014, 2009

  30. S. Rahnamayan, H.R. Tizhoosh, M.M.A. Salama, Quasi-oppositional differential evolution. in Proceedings of IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 2229–2236, 2007

  31. N.Q. Uy, N.X. Hoai, M. O’Neill, R.I. McKay, E. Galvan- Lopez, Semantically-based crossover in genetic programming: application to real-valued symbolic regression. Genet. Program Evolvable Mach. 12(2), 91–119 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. J. F. Miller, Cartesian Genetic Programming. (Springer, Berlin, 2011)

  33. S. Rahnamayan, H.R. Tizhoosh, M.M.A. Salama, Opposition-based differential evolution. in IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 12, pp. 64–79, 2008

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samaneh Yazdani.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yazdani, S., Shanbehzadeh, J. Balanced Cartesian Genetic Programming via migration and opposition-based learning: application to symbolic regression. Genet Program Evolvable Mach 16, 133–150 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10710-014-9230-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10710-014-9230-4

Keywords

Navigation