Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Joint Conference on Computational Intelligence

IJCCI 2019: Computational Intelligence pp 85–114Cite as

An Empirical Study on Insertion and Deletion Mutation in Cartesian Genetic Programming

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Studies in Computational Intelligence ((SCI,volume 922))

Abstract

The most commonly used genetic operator in Cartesian Genetic Programming (CGP) is the genotypic point mutation. Since CGP suffers from a lack of knowledge about the possibilities and effectiveness of advanced genetic operators, the point mutation is usually the sole genetic operator when CGP is used. To improve the state of knowledge, this work is devoted to the investigation of the effectiveness of two phenotypic mutation techniques. takes another step towards the use of advanced phenotypic mutations in CGP. The functionality of the proposed mutations is inspired by biological evolution, where DNA sequences are mutated by inserting and deleting nucleotides. This behavior is adapted by activating and deactivating function nodes in the genotype. In the first place, the experimental part of this paper focuses, on experiments with sets of well-known Boolean functions and symbolic regression problems are performed and the results show an improved search performance when these phenotypic mutations are used. The observed improvement of the search performance indicates that the insertion and deletion mutation techniques are beneficial for the use of CGP. The effectiveness of both mutation techniques is underlined with a comparison to another state-of-the-art technique in the field of graph-based genetic programming. Another part of this work is devoted to the analysis and interpretation of the effects which are caused in fitness and phenotype space when both mutation techniques are used. For the interpretation, we analyze and compare the findings of previous work in the field of phenotypic genetic operators for CGP which leads to new ideas about the effects of both mutation techniques on the behavior of CGP.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Angeline, P.J.: An investigation into the sensitivity of genetic programming to the frequency of leaf selection during subtree crossover. In: Koza J.R., Goldberg D.E., Fogel D.B., Riolo R.L. (eds.) Genetic Programming 1996: Proceedings of the First Annual Conference, Stanford University, CA, USA, 28–31 July 1996, pp. 21–29. MIT Press (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Atkinson, T., Plump, D., Stepney, S.: Evolving graphs by graph programming. In: Castelli M., Sekanina L., Zhang M., Cagnoni S., Garcia-Sanchez P. (eds.) EuroGP 2018: Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Genetic Programming, Parma, Italy, 4–6 April 2018. LNCS, vol. 10781, pp. 35–51. Springer (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cramer, N.L.: A representation for the adaptive generation of simple sequential programs. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, pp. 183–187. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc. (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Forsyth, R.: Beagle – a darwian approach to pattern recognition. Kybernetes 10(3), 159–166 (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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, GECCO ’13, pp. 933–940. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Goldman, B.W., Punch, W.F.: Analysis of cartesian genetic programming’s evolutionary mechanisms. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 19(3), 359–373 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hicklin, J.: Application of the genetic algorithm to automatic program generation. Master’s thesis (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kalganova, T., Miller, J.F.: Evolutionary approach to design multiple-valued combinational circuits. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Applications of Computer Systems (ACS) (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kalkreuth, R.: Towards advanced phenotypic mutations in cartesian genetic programming. CoRR arXiv:1803.06127 (2018)

  10. Kalkreuth, R.: Two new mutation techniques for cartesian genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Computational Intelligence, IJCCI 2019, Vienna, Austria, 17–19 September 2019, pp. 82–92 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kalkreuth, R., Rudolph, G., Droschinsky, A.: A new subgraph crossover for cartesian genetic programming. In: Castelli M., McDermott J., Sekanina L. (eds.) EuroGP 2017: Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Genetic Programming, 19–21 April 2017. LNCS, vol. 10196, pp. 294–310. Springer, Amsterdam (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kaufmann, P., Platzner, M.: Advanced techniques for the creation and propagation of modules in cartesian genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO ’08, pp. 1219–1226. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Koza, J.: Genetic Programming: a paradigm for genetically breeding populations of computer programs to solve problems, June 1990. Technical Report STAN-CS-90-1314, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University (1990)

    Google Scholar 

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

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Koza, J.R.: Genetic Programming II: Automatic Discovery of Reusable Programs. MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Kraft, D.H., Petry, F.E., Buckles, B.P., Sadasivan, T.: The use of genetic programming to build queries for information retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, Orlando, Florida, USA, 27–29 June 1994, vol. 1, pp. 468–473. IEEE Press (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Manfrini, F.A.L., Bernardino, H.S., Barbosa, H.J.C.: A novel efficient mutation for evolutionary design of combinational logic circuits. In: Handl J., Hart E., Lewis P.R., López-Ibáñez M., Ochoa G., Paechter B. (eds.) Parallel Problem Solving from Nature – PPSN XIV, pp. 665–674. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  18. McDermott, J., White, D.R., Luke, S., Manzoni, L., Castelli, M., Vanneschi, L., Jaśkowski, W., Krawiec, K., Harper, R., De Jong, K., O’Reilly, U.-M.: Genetic programming needs better benchmarks. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO ’08, pp. 791–798. ACM, Philadelphia (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Miller, J.F., Thomson, P., Fogarty, T.: Designing Electronic Circuits Using Evolutionary Algorithms. Arithmetic Circuits: A Case Study (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Miller, J.F.: An empirical study of the efficiency of learning Boolean functions using a cartesian genetic programming approach. In: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, Orlando, Florida, USA, 13–17 July 1999, vol. 2, pp. 1135–1142. Morgan Kaufmann (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Miller, J.F., Smith, S.L.: Redundancy and computational efficiency in cartesian genetic programming. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 10(2), 167–174 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ni, F., Li, Y., Yang, X., Xiang, J.: An orthogonal cartesian genetic programming algorithm for evolvable hardware. In: 2014 International Conference on Identification, Information and Knowledge in the Internet of Things (IIKI), October 2014, pp. 220–224 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  23. White, D.R., McDermott, J., Castelli, M., Manzoni, L., Goldman, B.W., Kronberger, G., Jaskowski, W., O’Reilly, U.-M., Luke, S.: Better GP benchmarks: community survey results and proposals. Genet. Program. Evolvable Mach. 14(1), 3–29 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany

    Roman Kalkreuth

Authors
  1. Roman Kalkreuth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roman Kalkreuth .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Architecture and Technology, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Juan Julián Merelo

  2. Jubilee Campus, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

    Jonathan Garibaldi

  3. ETSI Informática, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain

    Alejandro Linares-Barranco

  4. University of Reading, Coventry, UK

    Kevin Warwick

  5. University of Paris-EST Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France

    Kurosh Madani

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Kalkreuth, R. (2021). An Empirical Study on Insertion and Deletion Mutation in Cartesian Genetic Programming. In: Merelo, J.J., Garibaldi, J., Linares-Barranco, A., Warwick, K., Madani, K. (eds) Computational Intelligence. IJCCI 2019. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 922. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70594-7_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation