Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Enhancing Cartesian genetic programming through preferential selection of larger solutions

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Evolutionary Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We demonstrate how the efficiency of Cartesian genetic programming methods can be enhanced through the preferential selection of phenotypically larger solutions among equally good solutions. The advantage is demonstrated in two qualitatively different problems: the eight-bit parity problems and the “Paige” regression problem. In both cases, the preferential selection of larger solutions provides an advantage in term of the performance and of speed, i.e. number of evaluations required to evolve optimal or high-quality solutions. Performance can be further enhanced by self-adapting the mutation rate through the one-fifth success rule. Finally, we demonstrate that, for problems like the Paige regression in which neutrality plays a smaller role, performance can be further improved by preferentially selecting larger solutions also among candidates with similar fitness.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Edelman GM, Gally JA (2001) Degeneracy and complexity in biological systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(13):763–768

    Google Scholar 

  2. Garmendia-Doval AB, Morley DS, Juhos S (2003) Post docking filtering using cartesian genetic programming. In:Liartdet P (ed) Proceedings of the 6th international conference on artificial evolution, pp 435–446

  3. Gajda Z, Sekanina L (2007) Reducing the number of transistors in digital circuits using gate-level evolutionary design. In: Genetic and evolutionary computation conference, ACM, pp 245–252

  4. Gajda Z, Sekanina L (2007) An efficient selection strategy for digital circuit evolution. In: International conference on evolvable systems: from biology to hardware. Lecture Notes on Computer Science 6274, pp 13–24

  5. Goldman B.W., and Punch W.F. (2013). Reducing wasted evaluations in cartesian genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the European conference on genetic programming. Springer, Berlin

  6. Harding S, Miller JF (2005) Evolution of robot controller using cartesian genetic programming. In: Proceeding of the 8th European conference on genetic programming, vol 3447. Lausanne, Switzerland, pp 62–73

  7. Harding S, Graziano V, Leitner J, Schmidhuber J (2012) MT-CGP: mixed type Cartesian genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the 14th genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO). Philadelphia, PA, USA, pp 751–758

  8. Harding S, Miller J, Banzhaf W (2009) Self-modifying Cartesian genetic programming: fibonacci, squares, regression and summing. In: Proceedings of the 12th European conference on genetic programming (EuroGP), vol 5481. Tuebingen, Germany, pp 133–144

  9. Hu T, Payne JL, Banzhaf W, Moore JH (2012) Evolutionary dynamics on multiple scales: a quantitative analysis of the interplay between genotype, phenotype, and fitness in linear genetic programming. Genet Program Evolvable Mach 13(3):305–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Khan MM, Ahmad AM, Khan GM, Miller JF (2013) Fast learning neural networks using Cartesian genetic programming. Neurocomputing 121:274–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kalganova T, Miller JF (1999) Evolving more efficient digital circuits by allowing circuit layout evolution and multi-objective fitness. In: The first NASA/DoD workshop on evolvable hardware, IEEE Computer Society, pp 54–63

  12. Koza JR (1992) Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection. MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Langdon WB, Poli R (2002) Foundations of genetic programming. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Milano N, Pagliuca P, Nolfi S (2019) Robustness, evolvability and phenotypic complexity: insights from evolving digital circuits. Evol Intell 12(1):83–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Milano N, Nolfi S (2016) Robustness to faults promotes evolvability: insights from evolving digital circuits. PLoS ONE 11(7):e0158627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Miller JF (2011) Cartesian genetic programming. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Miller JF, Smith SL (2006) Redundancy and computational efficiency in Cartesian genetic programming. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 10(2):167–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Miller JF, Thomson P (2000) Cartesian genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the third european conference on genetic programming (EuroGP), vol 1820.Springer, Berlin, pp 121–132

  19. Miller JF, Job D, Vassilev VK (2000) Principles in the evolutionary design of digital circuits—Part I. J Genet Program Evolvable Mach 1:8–35

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Miller JF, Job D, Vassilev VK (2000) Principles in the evolutionary design of digital circuits—Part II. J. Genet Program Evolvable Mach 1:259–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Miller JF (2019) The alchemy of computation: designing with the unknown. Nat Comput 1–12

  22. Pagie L, Hogeweg P (1997) Evolutionary consequences of coevolving targets. Evolut Comput 5(4):401–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Raman K, Wagner A (2011) The evolvability of programmable hardware. J R Soc Interface 8(55):269–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rechenberg I (1973) Evolutionsstrategie. Friedrich Frommann Verlag (Gunther Holzboog KG), Stuttgart

  25. Rechenberg I (1973) Evolutionstrategie—Optimierung technischer Systeme nach Prinzipien der biologischen Evolution. Frommann-Holzboog, Stuggart

    Google Scholar 

  26. Schumer M, Steiglitz K (1968) Adaptive step size random search. IEEE Trans Autom Control 13:270–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Schuster P, Fontana W, Stadler PF, Hofacker IL (1994) From sequences to shapes and back: a case study in RNA secondary structures. Proc R Soc Lond B 255:279–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Tononi G, Sporns O, Edelman GM (1999) Measures of degeneracy and redundancy in biological networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:3257–3262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Turner JT, Miller JF (2015) Neutral genetic drift: an investigation using Cartesian genetic programming. Genet Program Evolvable Mach 16(4):531–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Turner AJ, Miller JF (2014) Recurrent cartesian genetic programming. In: 13th International conference on parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN 2014), LNCS, vol 8672.Springer, Berlin, pp 476–486

  31. Van Nimwegen E, Crutchfield JP, Huynen M (1999) Neutral evolution of mutational robustness. PNAS 96:9716–9720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Vassilev V, Job D, Miller J (2000) Towards the automatic design of more efficient digital circuits. In: Proceedings of the 2nd NASA/DoD workshop on evolvable hardware, IEEE Computer Society, pp 151–160

  33. Wagner A (2008) Robustness and evolvability: a paradox resolved. Proc R Soc B 275:91–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wagner A (2011) The origins of evolutionary innovations: a theory of transformative change in living systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Wilson DG, Cussat-Blanc S, Luga H, Miller JF (2018) Evolving simple programs for playing Atari games. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.05695

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thanks Prof. Julian Miller for insightful discussions and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, National Research Council (CNR), Via S. Martino della Battaglia, 44, 00185, Rome, Italy

    Nicola Milano & Stefano Nolfi

Authors
  1. Nicola Milano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefano Nolfi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicola Milano.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Milano, N., Nolfi, S. Enhancing Cartesian genetic programming through preferential selection of larger solutions. Evol. Intel. 14, 1539–1546 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-020-00421-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-020-00421-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation