On the Locality of Grammatical Evolution

This paper investigates the locality of the genotype-phenotype mapping (representation) used in grammatical evolution (GE). The results show that the representation used in GE has problems with locality as many neighboring genotypes do not correspond to neighboring phenotypes. Experiments with a simple local search strategy reveal that the GE representation leads to lower performance for mutation-based search approaches in comparison to standard GP representations. The results suggest that locality issues should be considered for further development of the representation used in GE.

[1]  Franz Rothlauf,et al.  Representations for genetic and evolutionary algorithms , 2002, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing.

[2]  Julian Francis Miller,et al.  Cartesian genetic programming , 2000, GECCO '10.

[3]  Conor Ryan,et al.  Grammatical evolution , 2007, GECCO '07.

[4]  Michael D. Vose,et al.  Modeling Simple Genetic Algorithms , 1992, FOGA.

[5]  Kaizhong Zhang,et al.  Simple Fast Algorithms for the Editing Distance Between Trees and Related Problems , 1989, SIAM J. Comput..

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

[7]  Günther R. Raidl,et al.  The Effects of Locality on the Dynamics of Decoder-Based Evolutionary Search , 2000, GECCO.

[8]  John Daniel. Bagley,et al.  The behavior of adaptive systems which employ genetic and correlation algorithms : technical report , 1967 .

[9]  C. Igel.  Causality of hierarchical variable length representations , 1998, 1998 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation Proceedings. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence (Cat. No.98TH8360).

[10]  Franz Rothlauf,et al.  Pruefer Numbers and Genetic Algorithms: A Lesson on How the Low Locality of an Encoding Can Harm the Performance of GAs , 2000, PPSN.

[11]  D. Goldberg,et al.  Tree network design with genetic algorithms an investigation in the locality of the pruefernumber en , 1999 .

[12]  Wolfgang Banzhaf,et al.  Explicit Control of Diversity and Effective Variation Distance in Linear Genetic Programming , 2002, EuroGP.

[13]  Eiichi Tanaka,et al.  The Tree-to-Tree Editing Problem , 1988, Int. J. Pattern Recognit. Artif. Intell..

[14]  GUNAR E. LIEPINS,et al.  Representational issues in genetic optimization , 1990, J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell..

[15]  J. Doran,et al.  Experiments with the Graph Traverser program , 1966, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[16]  Conor Ryan,et al.  Grammatical Evolution: A Steady State approach , 2008 .

[17]  Günther R. Raidl,et al.  Characterizing Locality in Decoder-Based EAs for the Multidimensional Knapsack Problem , 1999, Artificial Evolution.

[18]  Kuo-Chung Tai,et al.  The Tree-to-Tree Correction Problem , 1979, JACM.

[19]  G. Raidl,et al.  Prüfer numbers: a poor representation of spanning trees for evolutionary search , 2001 .

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

[21]  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.

[22]  W. Banzhaf,et al.  Genetic programming using genotype-phenotype mapping from linear genomes into linear phenotypes , 1996 .

[23]  Michael O'Neill,et al.  Grammatical evolution - evolutionary automatic programming in an arbitrary language , 2003, Genetic programming.