Abstract
Many evolutionary computation search spaces require fitness assessment through the sampling of and generalization over a large set of possible cases as input. Such spaces seem particularly apropos to Genetic Programming, which notionally searches for computer algorithms and functions. Most existing research in this area uses ad-hoc approaches to the sampling task, guided more by intuition than understanding. In this initial investigation, we compare six approaches to sampling large training case sets in the context of genetic programming representations. These approaches include fixed and random samples, and adaptive methods such as coevolution or fitness sharing. Our results suggest that certain domain features may lead to the preference of one approach to generalization over others. In particular, coevolution methods are strongly domain-dependent. We conclude the paper with suggestions for further investigations to shed more light onto how one might adjust fitness assessment to make various methods more effective.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bersano-Begey, T.F., Daida, J.M.: A discussion on generality and robustness and a framework for fitness set construction in Genetic Programming to promote robustness. In Koza, J.R., ed.: Late Breaking Papers at the 1997 Genetic Programming Conference, Stanford University, CA, USA, Stanford Bookstore (1997) 11–18
Pagie, L., Hogeweg, P.: Evolutionary consequences of coevolving targets. Evolutionary Computation 5 (1997) 401–418
Hillis, D.: Co-evolving parasites improve simulated evolution as an optimization procedure. Artificial Life II, SFI Studies in the Sciences of Complexity 10 (1991) 313–324
Kushchu, I.: Genetic Programming and evolutionary generalization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6 (2002) 431–442
Juille, H., Pollack, J.: Coevolutionary arms race improves generalization. In Koza, J.R., ed.: Late Breaking Papers at the Genetic Programming 1998 Conference, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, Stanford University Bookstore (1998)
Kinnear, Jr., K.E.: Generality and difficulty in Genetic Programming: evolving a sort. In Forrest, S., ed.: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, ICGA-93, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Morgan Kaufmann (1993) 287–294
Cavaretta, M.J., Chellapilla, K.: Data mining using Genetic Programming: The implications of parsimony on generalization error. In Angeline, P.J., Michalewicz, Z., Schoenauer, M., Yao, X., Zalzala, A., eds.: Proceedings of the Congress on Evolutionary Computation. Volume 2., Mayflower Hotel, Washington D.C., USA, IEEE Press (1999) 1330–1337
Rosca, J.: Generality versus size in Genetic Programming. 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, MIT Press (1996) 381–387
Droste, S.: Efficient Genetic Programming for finding good generalizing boolean functions. In Koza, J.R., Deb, K., Dorigo, M., Fogel, D.B., Garzon, M., Iba, H., Riolo, R.L., eds.: Genetic Programming 1997: Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference, Stanford University, CA, USA, Morgan Kaufmann (1997) 82–87
Reynolds, C.W.: Evolution of corridor following behavior in a noisy world. In: Simulation of Adaptive Behaviour (SAB-94). (1994)
Koza, J.: Genetic Programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection. MIT Press (1992)
Moore, F.W., Garcia, O.N.: New methodology for reducing brittleness in Genetic Programming. In Pohl, E., ed.: Proceedings of the National Aerospace and Electronics 1997 Conference (NAECON-97), IEEE Press (1997)
Rosin, C., Belew, R.: New methods for competitive coevolution. Evolutionary Computation 5 (1997) 1–29
Forrest, S., Smith, R.E., Javornik, B., Perelson, A.S.: Using Genetic Algorithms to explore pattern recognition in the immune system. Evolutionary Computation 1 (1993) 191–211
Rowland, J.: On model selection in supervised learning: Do we really know when to stop? In: Evolutionary and Neural Computation in Bioinformatics: A PPSN VII Workshop. (2002)
Brameier, M., Banzhaf, W.: A comparison of Linear Genetic Programming and Neural Networks in medical data mining. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 5 (2001) 17–26
Eiben, A.E., Jelasity, M.: A critical note on experimental research methodology in EC. In: Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC 2002). (2002) 582–587
Luke, S. ECJ 9: An Evolutionary Computation research system in Java. Available at http://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/plus/ec/ecj/ (2002)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Panait, L., Luke, S. (2003). Methods for Evolving Robust Programs. In: Cantú-Paz, E., et al. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation — GECCO 2003. GECCO 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2724. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45110-2_66
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45110-2_66
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-40603-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45110-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive