Abstract
In this work, we improve upon two frequently used mutation algorithms and therefore introduce three refined mutation strategies for Cartesian Genetic Programming. At first, we take the probabilistic concept of a mutation rate and split it into two mutation rates, one for active and inactive nodes respectively. Afterwards, the mutation method Single is taken and extended. Single mutates nodes until an active node is hit. Here, our extension mutates nodes until more than one but still predefined number n of active nodes are hit. At last, this concept is taken and a decay rate for n is introduced. Thus, we decrease the required number of active nodes hit per mutation step during CGP’s training process. We show empirically on different classification, regression and boolean regression benchmarks that all methods lead to better fitness values. This is then further supported by probabilistic comparison methods such as the Bayesian comparison of classifiers and the Mann-Whitney-U-Test. However, these improvements come with the cost of more mutation steps needed which in turn lengthens the training time. The third variant, in which n is decreased, does not differ from the second mutation strategy listed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The code as well as its datasets preprocessing can be found in the following GitHub repository: https://github.com/CuiHen/Refining-Mutation-in-CGP.git.
References
Baldi, P., Brunak, S., Chauvin, Y., Andersen, C.A.F., Nielsen, H.: Assessing the accuracy of prediction algorithms for classification: an overview. Bioinformatics 16(5), 412–424 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/16.5.412
Benavoli, A., Corani, G., Demšar, J., Zaffalon, M.: Time for a change: a tutorial for comparing multiple classifiers through Bayesian analysis. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 18(1), 2653–2688 (2017)
Bentley, P.J., Lim, S.L.: Fault tolerant fusion of office sensor data using cartesian genetic programming. In: 2017 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI), pp. 1–8. IEEE (2017)
Dua, D., Graff, C.: UCI machine learning repository (2017). https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml
Goldman, B.W., Punch, W.F.: Length bias and search limitations in cartesian genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pp. 933–940. GECCO ’13, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2013)
Goldman, B.W., Punch, W.F.: Reducing Wasted Evaluations in Cartesian Genetic Programming. In: Krawiec, K., Moraglio, A., Hu, T., Etaner-Uyar, A.Ş, Hu, B. (eds.) EuroGP 2013. LNCS, vol. 7831, pp. 61–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37207-0_6
Goldman, B.W., Punch, W.F.: Analysis of cartesian genetic programming’s evolutionary mechanisms. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 19(3), 359–373 (2015)
Harding, S., Graziano, V., Leitner, J., Schmidhuber, J.: MT-CGP: mixed type cartesian genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pp. 751–758 (2012)
Harding, S.L., Miller, J.F., Banzhaf, W.: Self-modifying cartesian genetic programming. In: Miller, J. (ed.) Cartesian Genetic Programming, pp. 101–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17310-3_4
Hodan, D., Mrazek, V., Vasicek, Z.: Semantically-oriented mutation operator in cartesian genetic programming for evolutionary circuit design. Genetic Programm. Evol. Mach. 22(4), 539–572 (2021)
Husa, J., Kalkreuth, R.: A comparative study on crossover in cartesian genetic programming. In: Castelli, M., Sekanina, L., Zhang, M., Cagnoni, S., García-Sánchez, P. (eds.) Genetic Programming, pp. 203–219. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77553-1_13
Kalkreuth, R.: Towards advanced phenotypic mutations in cartesian genetic programming. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.06127 (2018)
Kalkreuth, R., Rudolph, G., Droschinsky, A.: A new subgraph crossover for cartesian genetic programming. In: McDermott, J., Castelli, M., Sekanina, L., Haasdijk, E., García-Sánchez, P. (eds.) Genetic Programming, pp. 294–310. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55696-3_19
Kaufmann, P., Kalkreuth, R.: On the parameterization of cartesian genetic programming. In: 2020 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), pp. 1–8 (2020)
Leitner, J., Harding, S., Forster, A., Schmidhuber, J.: Mars terrain image classification using cartesian genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space, i-SAIRAS 2012, pp. 1–8. European Space Agency (ESA) (2012)
Margraf, A., Stein, A., Engstler, L., Geinitz, S., Hahner, J.: An evolutionary learning approach to self-configuring image pipelines in the context of carbon fiber fault detection. In: 2017 16th IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA), pp. 147–154. IEEE (2017)
Miller, J., Smith, S.: Redundancy and computational efficiency in cartesian genetic programming. Evol. Comput. IEEE Trans. 10, 167–174 (2006)
Miller, J.F., Thomson, P.: Cartesian genetic programming. In: Poli, R., Banzhaf, W., Langdon, W.B., Miller, J., Nordin, P., Fogarty, T.C. (eds.) EuroGP 2000. LNCS, vol. 1802, pp. 121–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-46239-2_9
Miller, J., Thomson, P., Fogarty, T., Ntroduction, I.: Designing electronic circuits using evolutionary algorithms, arithmetic circuits: a case study. Genetic Algorithms Evol. Strateg. Eng Comput. Sci. (1999)
Miller, J.F.: An empirical study of the efficiency of learning Boolean functions using a cartesian genetic programming approach. In: Proceedings of the 1st Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation - Volume 2. pp. 1135–1142. GECCO’99, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA (1999)
Miller, J.F.: Cartesian genetic programming: its status and future. Genetic Programm. Evol. Mach. 21(1), 129–168 (2020)
Möller, F.J.D., Bernardino, H.S., Gonçalves, L.B., Soares, S.S.R.F.: A reinforcement learning based adaptive mutation for cartesian genetic programming applied to the design of combinational logic circuits. In: Cerri, R., Prati, R.C. (eds.) Intelligent Systems, pp. 18–32. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61380-8_2
Turner, A.J., Miller, J.F.: Neutral genetic drift: an investigation using cartesian genetic programming. Genetic Programm. Evol. Mach. 16(4), 531–558 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10710-015-9244-6
White, D., et al.: Better GP benchmarks: community survey results and proposals. Genetic Programm. Evol. Mach. 14, 3–29 (2013)
Wilson, D.G., Miller, J.F., Cussat-Blanc, S., Luga, H.: Positional cartesian genetic programming. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04119 (2018)
Yu, T., Miller, J.: Neutrality and the evolvability of Boolean function landscape. In: Miller, J., Tomassini, M., Lanzi, P.L., Ryan, C., Tettamanzi, A.G.B., Langdon, W.B. (eds.) EuroGP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2038, pp. 204–217. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45355-5_16
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Cui, H., Margraf, A., Hähner, J. (2022). Refining Mutation Variants in Cartesian Genetic Programming. In: Mernik, M., Eftimov, T., Črepinšek, M. (eds) Bioinspired Optimization Methods and Their Applications. BIOMA 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13627. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21094-5_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21094-5_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-21093-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-21094-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)