Computational complexity analysis of simple genetic programming on two problems modeling isolated program semantics

Analyzing the computational complexity of evolutionary algorithms (EAs) for binary search spaces has significantly informed our understanding of EAs in general. With this paper, we start the computational complexity analysis of genetic programming (GP). We set up several simplified GP algorithms and analyze them on two separable model problems, ORDER and MAJORITY, each of which captures a relevant facet of typical GP problems. Both analyses give first rigorous insights into aspects of GP design, highlighting in particular the impact of accepting or rejecting neutral moves and the importance of a local mutation operator.

[1]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  and Management , 1998 .

[2]  Martin Raab,et al.  "Balls into Bins" - A Simple and Tight Analysis , 1998, RANDOM.

[3]  Carsten Witt,et al.  Runtime Analysis of the ( μ +1) EA on Simple Pseudo-Boolean Functions , 2006 .

[4]  Herbert S. Wilf,et al.  Some New Aspects of the Coupon Collector's Problem , 2003, SIAM Rev..

[5]  Richard J. Lipton,et al.  Random walks, universal traversal sequences, and the complexity of maze problems , 1979, 20th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1979).

[6]  Carsten Witt,et al.  UNIVERSITY OF DORTMUND REIHE COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH CENTER 531 Design and Management of Complex Technical Processes and Systems by means of Computational Intelligence Methods Worst-Case and Average-Case Approximations by Simple Randomized Search Heuristics , 2004 .

[7]  Stephen R. Marsland,et al.  Convergence Properties of (μ + λ) Evolutionary Algorithms , 2011, AAAI.

[8]  Ingo Wegener,et al.  Randomized local search, evolutionary algorithms, and the minimum spanning tree problem , 2004, Theor. Comput. Sci..

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

[10]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  Design and Management of Complex Technical Processes and Systems by means of Computational Intelligence Methods Evolutionary Algorithms-How to Cope With Plateaus of Constant Fitness and When to Reject Strings of the Same Fitness , 2001 .

[11]  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.

[12]  Una-May O'Reilly,et al.  Genetic Programming II: Automatic Discovery of Reusable Programs. , 1994, Artificial Life.

[13]  Frank Neumann,et al.  Bioinspired computation in combinatorial optimization: algorithms and their computational complexity , 2010, GECCO '12.

[14]  Schloss Birlinghoven,et al.  How Genetic Algorithms Really Work I.mutation and Hillclimbing , 2022 .

[15]  Una-May O'Reilly,et al.  A comparative analysis of genetic programming , 1996 .

[16]  Benjamin Doerr,et al.  Crossover can provably be useful in evolutionary computation , 2008, GECCO '08.

[17]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Theoretical results in genetic programming: the next ten years? , 2010, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[18]  Una-May O'Reilly,et al.  Program Search with a Hierarchical Variable Lenght Representation: Genetic Programming, Simulated Annealing and Hill Climbing , 1994, PPSN.

[19]  Una-May O'Reilly,et al.  An analysis of genetic programming , 1995 .