The Tree-String Problem: An Artificial Domain for Structure and Content Search

This paper introduces the Tree-String problem for genetic programming and related search and optimisation methods. To improve the understanding of optimisation and search methods, we aim to capture the complex dynamic created by the interdependencies of solution structure and content. Thus, we created an artificial domain that is amenable for analysis, yet representative of a wide-range of real-world applications. The Tree-String problem provides several benefits, including: the direct control of both structure and content objectives, the production of a rich and representative search space, the ability to create tunably difficult and random instances and the flexibility for specialisation.

[1]  Jason M. Daida,et al.  What Makes a Problem GP-Hard? Analysis of a Tunably Difficult Problem in Genetic Programming , 1999, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[2]  Ari Juels,et al.  Stochastic Hillclimbing as a Baseline Method for , 1994 .

[3]  Wolfram Burgard,et al.  A Probabilistic Approach to Collaborative Multi-Robot Localization , 2000, Auton. Robots.

[4]  Erik D. Goodman,et al.  The royal tree problem, a benchmark for single and multiple population genetic programming , 1996 .

[5]  Martin Wattenberg,et al.  Stochastic Hillclimbing as a Baseline Mathod for Evaluating Genetic Algorithms , 1995, NIPS.

[6]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Foundations of Genetic Programming , 1999, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[7]  Graham Kendall,et al.  Problem Difficulty and Code Growth in Genetic Programming , 2004, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[8]  Steven M. Gustafson.  An analysis of diversity in genetic programming , 2004 .

[9]  Ibrahim Kushchu,et al.  An Evaluation of EvolutionaryGeneralisation in Genetic Programming , 2002, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[10]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Where Does the Good Stuff Go, and Why? How Contextual Semantics Influences Program Structure in Simple Genetic Programming , 1998, EuroGP.

[11]  J. Ross Quinlan,et al.  Induction of Decision Trees , 1986, Machine Learning.

[12]  John R. Koza,et al.  Genetic Programming IV: Routine Human-Competitive Machine Intelligence , 2003 .

[13]  Peter J. Angeline,et al.  The Royal Tree Problem, a Benchmark for Single and Multiple Population Genetic Programming , 1996 .

[14]  P. Ross,et al.  An adverse interaction between crossover and restricted tree depth in genetic programming , 1996 .

[15]  D. Goldberg.  How Fitness Structure Affects Subsolution Acquisition in Genetic Programming , 1998 .

[16]  Jason M. Daida,et al.  What Makes a Problem GP-Hard? Validating a Hypothesis of Structural Causes , 2003, GECCO.

[17]  Mihalis Yannakakis,et al.  How easy is local search? , 1985, 26th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1985).

[18]  Anikó Ekárt,et al.  A Data Structure for Improved GP Analysis via Efficient Computation and Visualisation of Population Measures , 2004, EuroGP.

[19]  Julian F. Miller,et al.  Genetic and Evolutionary Computation — GECCO 2003 , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[20]  Una-May O'Reilly.  The Impact of External Dependency in Genetic Programming Primitives , 1998, Canadian Conference on AI.

[21]  Edwin D. de Jong,et al.  Multi-Objective Methods for Tree Size Control , 2003, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.