Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A Comparison of three evolutionary strategies for multiobjective genetic programming

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We report what we believe to be the first comparative study of multi-objective genetic programming (GP) algorithms on benchmark symbolic regression and machine learning problems. We compare the Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm (SPEA2), the Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-II) and the Pareto Converging Genetic Algorithm (PCGA) evolutionary paradigms. As well as comparing the quality of the final solutions, we also examine the speed of convergence of the three evolutionary algorithms. Based on our observations, the SPEA2-based algorithm appears to have problems controlling tree bloat—that is, the uncontrolled growth in the size of the chromosomal tree structures. The NSGA-II-based algorithm on the other hand seems to experience difficulties in locating low error solutions. Overall, the PCGA-based algorithm gives solutions with the lowest errors and the lowest mean complexity.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alpaydin E (1999) Combined 5 × 2 cv F-test for comparing supervised classification learning algorithms. Neural Comput 11: 1885–1892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleuler S, Brack M, Theile L, Zitzler E (2001) Multiobjective genetic programming: reducing bloat using SPEA2. In: Proceedings of congress on evolutionary computation. Seoul, Korea

  • Chellapilla K (1997) Evolving computer programs without subtree crossover. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 1: 209–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coello CAC, van Veldhuizen DA, Lamont GB (2002) Evolutionary algorithms for solving multiobjective problems. Kluwer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Daida JM, Li H, Tang R, Hilss AM (2003) What makes a problem GP-hard? Validating a hypothesis of structural causes. In: Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2724. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1665–1677

  • Deb K, Pratap A, Agarawal S, Meyarivan T (2003) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6: 182–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietterich T (1998) Approximate statistical tests for comparing supervised classification learning algorithms. Neural Comput 10: 1895–1923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekárt A, Németh SZ (2001) Selection based on the Pareto nondomination criterion for controlling code growth in genetic programming. Genet Program Evolvable Mach 2: 61–73

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ito T, Iba H, Sato S (1998) Non-destructive depth-dependent crossover for genetic programming. In: First European Workshop on Genetic Programming

  • Jaszkiewicz A (2002) Genetic local search for multi-objective combinatorial optimization. Eur J Oper Res 137: 50–71

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Koza JR (1994) Genetic programming II: automatic discovery of reusable programs. MIT, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar R, Rockett PI (2002) Improved sampling of the Pareto-front in multiobjective genetic optimizations by steady-state evolution: a Pareto converging genetic algorithm. Evol Comput 10: 283–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim T S, Loh W Y, Shih Y S (2000) A comparison of prediction accuracy, complexity, and training time of thirty-three old and new classification algorithms. Mach Learn 40: 203–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Vázquez K, Fonseca CM, Fleming PJ (2004) Identifying the structure of non-linear dynamic systems using multiobjective genetic programming. IEEE Trans Syst, Man Cybernetics—Part A: Syst Hum 34: 531–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vapnik VN (2000) The Nature of statistical learning theory. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y (2006) Multiobjective genetic programming optimal search for feature extraction. PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield

  • Zhang Y, Rockett PI (2005), Evolving optimal feature extraction using multi-objective genetic programming: a methodology and preliminary study on edge detection. In: GECCO 2005. Washington, DC

  • Zhang Y, Rockett PI (2006) Feature extraction using multi-objective genetic programming. In: Jin Y (eds) (ed) Multi-objective machine learning.. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Zitzler E, Thiele L (1999) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3: 257–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitzler E, Deb K, Thiele L (2000) Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: empirical results. Evol Comput 8: 173–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitzler E, Thiele L, Laumanns M, Fonseca CM, da Fonseca VG (2003) Performance assessment of multiobjective optimizers: an analysis and review. IEEE Trans on Evol Comput 7: 117–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Rockett.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhang, Y., Rockett, P. A Comparison of three evolutionary strategies for multiobjective genetic programming. Artif Intell Rev 27, 149–163 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-008-9093-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-008-9093-2

Keywords

Navigation