Problem Difficulty and Code Growth in Genetic Programming

This paper investigates the relationship between code growth and problem difficulty in genetic programming. The symbolic regression problem domain is used to investigate this relationship using two different types of increased instance difficulty. Results are supported by a simplified model of genetic programming and show that increased difficulty induces higher selection pressure and less genetic diversity, which both contribute toward an increased rate of code growth.

[1]  K. Chellapilla,et al.  Investigating the influence of depth and degree of genotypic change on fitness in genetic programming , 1999 .

[2]  B. W.,et al.  Size Fair and Homologous Tree Genetic Programming Crossovers , 1999 .

[3]  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.

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

[5]  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.

[6]  Peter W. H. Smith,et al.  Code Growth, Explicitly Defined Introns, and Alternative Selection Schemes , 1998, Evolutionary Computation.

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

[8]  F. Oppacher,et al.  Hybridized crossover-based search techniques for program discovery , 1995, Proceedings of 1995 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[9]  John R. Koza,et al.  Genetic programming 1997 : proceedings of the Second Annual Conference, July 13-16, 1997, Stanford University , 1997 .

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

[11]  N. Hopper,et al.  Analysis of genetic diversity through population history , 1999 .

[12]  Annie S. Wu,et al.  Putting More Genetics into Genetic Algorithms , 1998, Evolutionary Computation.

[13]  Terence Soule,et al.  Effects of Code Growth and Parsimony Pressure on Populations in Genetic Programming , 1998, Evolutionary Computation.

[14]  Byoung-Tak Zhang,et al.  Balancing Accuracy and Parsimony in Genetic Programming , 1995, Evolutionary Computation.

[15]  William B. Langdon,et al.  Quadratic Bloat in Genetic Programming , 2000, GECCO.

[16]  Sean Luke,et al.  Modification Point Depth and Genome Growth in Genetic Programming , 2003, Evolutionary Computation.

[17]  Anikó Ekárt,et al.  Maintaining the Diversity of Genetic Programs , 2002, EuroGP.

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

[19]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  A Simple but Theoretically-Motivated Method to Control Bloat in Genetic Programming , 2003, EuroGP.

[20]  Walter Alden Tackett,et al.  Recombination, selection, and the genetic construction of computer programs , 1994 .

[21]  Terence Soule,et al.  An Analysis of the Causes of Code Growth in Genetic Programming , 2002, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[22]  Edwin D. de Jong,et al.  Reducing bloat and promoting diversity using multi-objective methods , 2001 .

[23]  Graham Kendall,et al.  Advanced Population Diversity Measures in Genetic Programming , 2002, PPSN.

[24]  Anikó Ekárt,et al.  Shorter Fitness Preserving Genetic Programs , 1999, Artificial Evolution.

[25]  Sean Luke,et al.  Lexicographic Parsimony Pressure , 2002, GECCO.

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

[27]  Sean Luke,et al.  Fighting Bloat with Nonparametric Parsimony Pressure , 2002, PPSN.

[28]  Takuji Nishimura,et al.  Mersenne twister: a 623-dimensionally equidistributed uniform pseudo-random number generator , 1998, TOMC.

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

[30]  Una-May O’Reilly.  Using a distance metric on genetic programs to understand genetic operators , 1997, 1997 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Computational Cybernetics and Simulation.

[31]  ProgrammingJustinian P. RoscaComputer.  Analysis of Complexity Drift in Genetic , 1997 .

[32]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  The evolution of size and shape , 1999 .

[33]  Anikó Ekárt,et al.  A Metric for Genetic Programs and Fitness Sharing , 2000, EuroGP.

[34]  Hitoshi Iba,et al.  Genetic programming using a minimum description length principle , 1994 .

[35]  William B. Langdon,et al.  Size Fair and Homologous Tree Crossovers for Tree Genetic Programming , 2000, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.