Examining the landscape of semantic similarity based mutation

This paper examines how the semantic locality of a search operator affects the fitness landscape of Genetic Programming (GP). We compare the fitness landscapes of GP search when standard subtree mutation and arecently proposed semantic-based mutation, Semantic Similarity-based Mutation (SSM), are used. The comparison is based on two well-studied fitness landscape measures, namely, the autocorrelation function and information content. The experiments were conducted on a family of symbolic regression problems with increasing degrees of difficulty. The results show that SSM helps to significantly smooth out the fitness landscape of GP compared to standard subtree mutation. This gives an explanation for the better performance of SSM over standard subtree mutation operator.

[1]  John R. Koza,et al.  Human-competitive results produced by genetic programming , 2010, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[2]  Marco Tomassini,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms , 1995, Towards Evolvable Hardware.

[3]  Colin G. Johnson,et al.  Genetic Programming with Fitness Based on Model Checking , 2007, EuroGP.

[4]  Flemming Nielson,et al.  Semantics with Applications: An Appetizer (Undergraduate Topics in Computer Science) , 2007 .

[5]  Doron A. Peled,et al.  Model Checking-Based Genetic Programming with an Application to Mutual Exclusion , 2008, TACAS.

[6]  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.

[7]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  A Field Guide to Genetic Programming , 2008 .

[8]  Kwong-Sak Leung,et al.  An induction system that learns programs in different programming languages using genetic programming and logic grammars , 1995, Proceedings of 7th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence.

[9]  Nguyen Xuan Hoai,et al.  BASED MUTATION IN GENETIC PROGRAMMING : THE CASE FOR REAL-VALUED SYMBOLIC REGRESSION , 2009 .

[10]  Michael O'Neill,et al.  Semantic Aware Crossover for Genetic Programming: The Case for Real-Valued Function Regression , 2009, EuroGP.

[11]  Peter A. Whigham,et al.  Grammar-based Genetic Programming: a survey , 2010, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[12]  E. Weinberger,et al.  Correlated and uncorrelated fitness landscapes and how to tell the difference , 1990, Biological Cybernetics.

[13]  Vesselin K. Vassilev,et al.  Digital circuit evolution and fitness landscapes , 1999, Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation-CEC99 (Cat. No. 99TH8406).

[14]  Michael O'Neill,et al.  Semantic Similarity Based Crossover in GP: The Case for Real-Valued Function Regression , 2009, Artificial Evolution.

[15]  S. Kauffman,et al.  Towards a general theory of adaptive walks on rugged landscapes. , 1987, Journal of theoretical biology.

[16]  Leonardo Vanneschi,et al.  Fitness distance correlation in genetic programming: a constructive counterexample , 2003, The 2003 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2003. CEC '03..

[17]  Leonardo Vanneschi,et al.  Fitness Distance Correlation in Structural Mutation Genetic Programming , 2003, EuroGP.

[18]  Nicholas Freitag McPhee,et al.  Semantic Building Blocks in Genetic Programming , 2008, EuroGP.

[19]  Flemming Nielson,et al.  Semantics with Applications: An Appetizer , 2007, Undergraduate Topics in Computer Science.

[20]  Colin G. Johnson.  What can automatic programming learn from theoretical computer science , 2002 .

[21]  Colin G. Johnson.  Genetic Programming with Guaranteed Constraints , 2004 .

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

[23]  Colin R. Reeves,et al.  Genetic Algorithms: Principles and Perspectives: A Guide to Ga Theory , 2002 .

[24]  Michael O'Neill,et al.  An Attribute Grammar Decoder for the 01 MultiConstrained Knapsack Problem , 2005, EvoCOP.

[25]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Evolutionary algorithms , 1997, Emerging Evolutionary Algorithms for Antennas and Wireless Communications.

[26]  Terry Jones,et al.  One Operator, One Landscape , 1995 .

[27]  M. Ross Quillian,et al.  Retrieval time from semantic memory , 1969 .

[28]  Colin G. Johnson.  Deriving Genetic Programming Fitness Properties by Static Analysis , 2002, EuroGP.

[29]  Leonardo Vanneschi,et al.  Open issues in genetic programming , 2010, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[30]  Krzysztof Krawiec,et al.  Approximating geometric crossover in semantic space , 2009, GECCO.

[31]  Alfonso Ortega,et al.  Attribute Grammar Evolution , 2005, IWINAC.

[32]  K. Kinnear.  Fitness landscapes and difficulty in genetic programming , 1994, Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence.

[33]  Donald E. Knuth,et al.  Semantics of context-free languages , 1968, Mathematical systems theory.

[34]  Colin R. Reeves,et al.  Genetic Algorithms—Principles and Perspectives , 2002, Operations Research/Computer Science Interfaces Series.

[35]  S. B. Atienza-Samols,et al.  With Contributions by , 1978 .

[36]  Julian Francis Miller,et al.  Information Characteristics and the Structure of Landscapes , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

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

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

[39]  D. E. Goldberg,et al.  Simple Genetic Algorithms and the Minimal, Deceptive Problem , 1987 .

[40]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms and Walsh Functions: Part II, Deception and Its Analysis , 1989, Complex Syst..

[41]  Maarten Keijzer,et al.  Improving Symbolic Regression with Interval Arithmetic and Linear Scaling , 2003, EuroGP.

[42]  Colin G. Johnson,et al.  Semantically driven crossover in genetic programming , 2008, 2008 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence).