The roles of diversity preservation and mutation in preventing population collapse in multiobjective genetic programming

It has been observed previously that genetic programming populations can collapse to all single node trees when a parsimony measure (tree node count) is used in a multiobjective setting. We have investigated the circumstances under which this can occur for both the 6-parity boolean learning task and a range of benchmark machine learning problems. We conclude that mutation is an important -- and we believe a hitherto unrecognized -- factor in preventing population collapse in multiobjective genetic programming; without mutation we routinely observe population collapse. From systematic variation of the mutation operator, we conclude that a necessary condition to avoid collapse is that mutation produces, on average, an increase in tree sizes (bloating) at each generation which is then counterbalanced by the parsimony pressure applied during selection. Finally, we conclude that the use of a genotype diversity preserving mechanism is ineffective at preventing population collapse.

[1]  William B. Langdon,et al.  Seeding Genetic Programming Populations , 2000, EuroGP.

[2]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Evolving optimal feature extraction using multi-objective genetic programming: a methodology and preliminary study on edge detection , 2005, GECCO '05.

[3]  Anikó Ekárt,et al.  Selection Based on the Pareto Nondomination Criterion for Controlling Code Growth in Genetic Programming , 2001, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[4]  Peter J. Fleming,et al.  Genetic Algorithms for Multiobjective Optimization: FormulationDiscussion and Generalization , 1993, ICGA.

[5]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Feature Extraction Using Multi-Objective Genetic Programming , 2006, Multi-Objective Machine Learning.

[6]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Multiobjective genetic programming: reducing bloat using SPEA2 , 2001, Proceedings of the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE Cat. No.01TH8546).

[7]  Wei-Yin Loh,et al.  A Comparison of Prediction Accuracy, Complexity, and Training Time of Thirty-Three Old and New Classification Algorithms , 2000, Machine Learning.

[8]  Satoshi Sato,et al.  Non-destructive Depth-Dependent Crossover for Genetic Programming , 1998, EuroGP.

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

[10]  Carlos M. Fonseca,et al.  'Identifying the structure of nonlinear dynamic systems using multiobjective genetic programming , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[11]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Schema Theory for Genetic Programming with One-Point Crossover and Point Mutation , 1997, Evolutionary Computation.

[12]  Catherine Blake,et al.  UCI Repository of machine learning databases , 1998 .

[13]  C. Fonseca,et al.  GENETIC ALGORITHMS FOR MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION: FORMULATION, DISCUSSION, AND GENERALIZATION , 1993 .

[14]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Fitness Causes Bloat: Mutation , 1997, EuroGP.