An Analysis of Hierarchical Genetic Programming

Hierarchical genetic programming (HGP) approaches rely on the discovery, modification, and use of new functions to accelerate evolution. This paper provides a qualitative explanation of the improved behavior of HGP, based on an analysis of the evolution process from the dual perspective of diversity and causality. From a static point of view, the use of an HGP approach enables the manipulation of a population of higher diversity programs. Higher diversity increases the exploratory ability of the genetic search process, as demonstrated by theoretical and experimental fitness distributions and expanded structural complexity of individuals. From a dynamic point of view, this report analyzes the causality of the crossover operator. Causality relates changes in the structure of an object with the effect of such changes, i.e., changes in the properties or behavior of the object. The analyses of crossover causality suggests that HGP discovers and exploits useful structures in a bottom-up, hierarchical manner. Diversity and causality are complementary, affecting exploration and exploitation in genetic search. Unlike other machine learning techniques that need extra machinery to control the tradeoff between them, HGP automatically trades off exploration and exploitation.

[1]  Verzekeren Naar Sparen,et al.  Cambridge , 1969, Humphrey Burton: In My Own Time.

[2]  James Wong COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT , 1971 .

[3]  John Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Sys-tems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology , 1975 .

[4]  H. Simon,et al.  The Organization of Complex Systems , 1977 .

[5]  Nichael Lynn Cramer,et al.  A Representation for the Adaptive Generation of Simple Sequential Programs , 1985, ICGA.

[6]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[7]  W. Daniel Hillis,et al.  Co-evolving parasites improve simulated evolution as an optimization procedure , 1990 .

[8]  W. Pinebrook The evolution of strategy. , 1990, Case studies in health administration.

[9]  John R. Koza,et al.  Genetic Programming II , 1992 .

[10]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[11]  Leslie Pack Kaelbling,et al.  Learning in embedded systems , 1993 .

[12]  C. Wills The Runaway Brain , 1993 .

[13]  John R. Koza,et al.  Genetic programming - on the programming of computers by means of natural selection , 1993, Complex adaptive systems.

[14]  Stephanie Forrest,et al.  Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms , 1993 .

[15]  J. Pollack,et al.  Coevolving High-Level Representations , 1993 .

[16]  Peter J. Angeline Evolutionary algorithms and emergent intelligence , 1993 .

[17]  Dana H. Ballard,et al.  Genetic Programming with Adaptive Representations , 1994 .

[18]  Justinian P. Rosca,et al.  Hierarchical Self-Organization in Genetic programming , 1994, ICML.

[19]  Conor Ryan,et al.  Pygmies and civil servants , 1994 .

[20]  Una-May O'Reilly,et al.  The Troubling Aspects of a Building Block Hypothesis for Genetic Programming , 1994, FOGA.

[21]  Justinian P. Rosca,et al.  Learning by adapting representations in genetic programming , 1994, Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence.

[22]  John R. Koza,et al.  Architecture-Altering Operations for Evolving the Architecture of a Multi-Part Program in Genetic Programming , 1994 .

[23]  L. Altenberg The evolution of evolvability in genetic programming , 1994 .

[24]  Stewart W. Wilson ZCS: A Zeroth Level Classifier System , 1994, Evolutionary Computation.

[25]  Peter J. Angeline,et al.  Genetic programming and emergent intelligence , 1994 .

[26]  J. K. Kinnear,et al.  Alternatives in automatic function definition: a comparison of performance , 1994 .