Skip to main content

Difficulty of Unimodal and Multimodal Landscapes in Genetic Programming

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2724))

Abstract

This paper presents an original study of fitness distance correlation as a measure of problem difficulty in genetic programming. A new definition of distance, called structural distance, is used and suitable mutation operators for the program space are defined. The difficulty is studied for a number of problems, including, for the first time in GP, multimodal ones, both for the new hand-tailored mutation operators and standard crossover. Results are in agreement with empirical observations, thus confirming that fitness distance correlation can be considered a reasonable index of difficulty for genetic programming, at least for the set of problems studied here.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. K. Chellapilla. Evolutionary programming with tree mutations: Evolving computer programs without crossover. In J.R. Koza, K. Deb, M. Dorigo, D.B. Fogel, M. Garzon, H. Iba, and R.L. Riolo, editors, Genetic Programming 1997: Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference, pages 431–438, Stanford University, CA, USA, 1997. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Clergue, P. Collard, M. Tomassini, and L. Vanneschi. Fitness distance correlation and problem difficulty for genetic programming. In Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference GECCO’02, pages 724–732. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  3. P. Collard, A. Gaspar, M. Clergue, and C. Escazut. Fitness distance correlation as statistical measure of genetic algorithms difficulty, revisited. In European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’98), pages 650–654, Brighton, 1998. John Witley & Sons, Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  4. E.D. de Jong, R.A. Watson, and J.B. Pollak. Reducing bloat and promoting diversity using multi-objective methods. In L. Spector et al., editor, Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference GECCO’ 01, San Francisco, CA, July 2001. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  5. K. Deb and D.E. Goldberg. Analyzing deception in trap functions. In D. Whitley, editor, Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, 2, pages 93–108. Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  6. K. Deb, J. Horn, and D. Goldberg. Multimodal deceptive functions. Complex Systems, 7:131–153, 1993.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. A. Ekárt and S.Z. Németh. Maintaining the diversity of genetic programs. In J.A. Foster, E. Lutton, J. Miller, C. Ryan, and A.G.B. Tettamanzi, editors, Genetic Programming, Proceedings of the 5th European Conference, EuroGP 2002, volume 2278 of LNCS, pages 162–171, Kinsale, Ireland, 3–5 April 2002. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  8. C. Gathercole and P. Ross. An adverse interaction between crossover and restricted tree depth in genetic programming. In J.R. Koza, D.E. Goldberg, D.B. Fogel, and R.L. Riolo, editors, Genetic Programming 1996: Proceedings of the First Annual Conference, pages 291–296, Stanford University, CA, USA, 28–31 July 1996. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. T. Jones. Evolutionary Algorithms, Fitness Landscapes and Search. PhD thesis, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  10. W.B. Langdon and R. Poli. An analysis of the max problem in genetic programming. In J.R. Koza, K. Deb, M. Dorigo, D.B. Fogel, M. Garzon, H. Iba, and R.L. Riolo, editors, Genetic Programming 1997: Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference on Genetic Programming, pages 222–230, San Francisco, CA, 1997. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  11. N.F. McPhee and N.J. Hopper. Analysis of genetic diversity through population history. In W. Banzhaf, J. Daida, A.E. Eiben, M.H. Garzon, V. Honavar, M. Jakiela, and R. E. Smith, editors, Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, volume 2, pages 1112–1120, Orlando, Florida, USA, 13–17 July 1999. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  12. U.-M. O’Reilly. An Analysis of Genetic Programming. PhD thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  13. U.-M. O’Reilly. Using a distance metric on genetic programs to understand genetic operators. In Proceedings of 1997 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pages 4092–4097. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  14. B. Punch, D. Zongker, and E. Goodman. The royal tree problem, a benchmark for single and multiple population genetic programming. In P. Angeline and K. Kinnear, editors, Advances in Genetic Programming 2, pages 299–316, Cambridge, MA, 1996. The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. R.J. Quick, V.J. Rayward-Smith, and G.D. Smith. Fitness distance correlation and ridge functions. In Fifth Conference on Parallel Problems Solving from Nature (PPSN’98), pages 77–86. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1998.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. V. Slavov and N.I. Nikolaev. Fitness landscapes and inductive genetic programming. In Proceedings of International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks and Genetic Algorithms (ICANNGA97), University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, 1997. Springer-Verlag KG, Vienna.

    Google Scholar 

  17. L. Vanneschi, M. Tomassini, P. Collard, and M. Clergue. Fitness distance correlation in structural mutation genetic programming. In C. Ryan et al., editor, Genetic Programming, 6th European Conference, EuroGP2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Vanneschi, L., Tomassini, M., Clergue, M., Collard, P. (2003). Difficulty of Unimodal and Multimodal Landscapes in Genetic Programming. 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_70

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45110-2_70

  • 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics