Multi-Objective Methods for Tree Size Control

Variable length methods for evolutionary computation can lead to a progressive and mainly unnecessary growth of individuals, known as bloat. First, we propose to measure performance in genetic programming as a function of the number of nodes, rather than trees, that have been evaluated. Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimization (EMOO) constitutes a principled way to optimize both size and fitness and may provide parameterless size control. Reportedly, its use can also lead to minimization of size at the expense of fitness. We replicate this problem, and an empirical analysis suggests that multi-objective size control particularly requires diversity maintenance. Experiments support this explanation.The multi-objective approach is compared to genetic programming without size control on the 11-multiplexer, 6-parity, and a symbolic regression problem. On all three test problems, the method greatly reduces bloat and significantly improves fitness as a function of computational expense. Using the FOCUS algorithm, multi-objective size control is combined with active pursuit of diversity, and hypothesized minimum-size solutions to 3-, 4- and 5-parity are found. The solutions thus found are furthermore easily interpretable. When combined with diversity maintenance, EMOO can provide an adequate and parameterless approach to size control in variable length evolution.

[1]  Michael P. Fourman,et al.  Compaction of Symbolic Layout Using Genetic Algorithms , 1985, ICGA.

[2]  R. Poli,et al.  Discovery of Symbolic, Neuro-Symbolic and Neural Networks with Parallel Distributed Genetic Programming , 1997, ICANNGA.

[3]  Kenneth E. Kinnear,et al.  Generality and Difficulty in Genetic Programming: Evolving a Sort , 1993, ICGA.

[4]  Justinian Rosca,et al.  Generality versus size in genetic programming , 1996 .

[5]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms , 2001, Wiley-Interscience series in systems and optimization.

[6]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Exact Schema Theorems for GP with One-Point and Standard Crossover Operating on Linear Structures and Their Application to the Study of the Evolution of Size , 2001, EuroGP.

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

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

[9]  Peter Nordin,et al.  Genetic programming - An Introduction: On the Automatic Evolution of Computer Programs and Its Applications , 1998 .

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

[11]  William B. Langdon Data structures and genetic programming , 1995 .

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

[13]  William B. Langdon,et al.  Some Considerations on the Reason for Bloat , 2002, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[14]  Peter Nordin,et al.  Complexity Compression and Evolution , 1995, ICGA.

[15]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A Fast Elitist Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm for Multi-objective Optimisation: NSGA-II , 2000, PPSN.

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

[17]  Samir W. Mahfoud Niching methods for genetic algorithms , 1996 .

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

[19]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  Combining Convergence and Diversity in Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization , 2002, Evolutionary Computation.

[20]  Terence Soule,et al.  Code growth in genetic programming , 1996 .

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

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

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

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

[25]  J. Pollack,et al.  The Evolutionary Induction of Subroutines , 1997 .

[26]  Wolfgang Banzhaf,et al.  Hierarchical Genetic Programming using Local Modules , 2001 .

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

[28]  Martin J. Oates,et al.  PESA-II: region-based selection in evolutionary multiobjective optimization , 2001 .

[29]  John R. Koza,et al.  Genetic programming 2 - automatic discovery of reusable programs , 1994, Complex Adaptive Systems.

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

[31]  Stephen F. Smith,et al.  A learning system based on genetic adaptive algorithms , 1980 .

[32]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach , 1999, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[33]  P. Nordin,et al.  Explicitly defined introns and destructive crossover in genetic programming , 1996 .

[34]  W. Langdon The evolution of size in variable length representations , 1998, 1998 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation Proceedings. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence (Cat. No.98TH8360).

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

[36]  W. J. Conover,et al.  Practical Nonparametric Statistics , 1972 .

[37]  Carlos A. Coello Coello,et al.  An updated survey of GA-based multiobjective optimization techniques , 2000, CSUR.

[38]  Nicholas Freitag McPhee,et al.  Accurate Replication in Genetic Programming , 1995, ICGA.

[39]  Roland Olsson,et al.  Inductive Functional Programming Using Incremental Program Transformation , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[40]  Peter J. Fleming,et al.  An Overview of Evolutionary Algorithms in Multiobjective Optimization , 1995, Evolutionary Computation.