Efficient graph-based genetic programming representation with multiple outputs

In this work, we explore and study the implication of having more than one output on a genetic programming (GP) graph-representation. This approach, called multiple interactive outputs in a single tree (MIOST), is based on two ideas. First, we defined an approach, called interactivity within an individual (IWI), which is based on a graph-GP representation. Second, we add to the individuals created with the IWI approach multiple outputs in their structures and as a result of this, we have MIOST. As a first step, we analyze the effects of IWI by using only mutations and analyze its implications (i.e., presence of neutrality). Then, we continue testing the effectiveness of IWI by allowing mutations and the standard GP crossover in the evolutionary process. Finally, we tested the effectiveness of MIOST by using mutations and crossover and conducted extensive empirical results on different evolvable problems of different complexity taken from the literature. The results reported in this paper indicate that the proposed approach has a better overall performance in terms of consistency reaching feasible solutions.

[1]  M. Kimura.  The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution: Introduction , 1983 .

[2]  Wolfgang Banzhaf,et al.  Linear-Tree GP and Its Comparison with Other GP Structures , 2001, EuroGP.

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

[4]  Marc Toussaint,et al.  On the Evolution of Phenotypic Exploration Distributions , 2002, FOGA.

[5]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  An empirical investigation of how and why neutrality affects evolutionary search , 2006, GECCO '06.

[6]  Carlos A. Coello Coello,et al.  On the use of a population-based particle swarm optimizer to design combinational logic circuits , 2004, Proceedings. 2004 NASA/DoD Conference on Evolvable Hardware, 2004..

[7]  Astro Teller,et al.  PADO: Learning Tree Structured Algorithms for Orchestration into an Object Recognition System , 1995 .

[8]  David J. Montana,et al.  Strongly Typed Genetic Programming , 1995, Evolutionary Computation.

[9]  Peter J. Angeline,et al.  Evolutionary Module Acquisition , 1993 .

[10]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Some Steps Towards Understanding How Neutrality Affects Evolutionary Search , 2006, PPSN.

[11]  Carlos A. Coello Coello,et al.  Design of combinational logic circuits through an evolutionary multiobjective optimization approach , 2002, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[12]  Wolfgang Banzhaf,et al.  Linear-Graph GP - A New GP Structure , 2002, EuroGP.

[13]  Julian Francis Miller,et al.  Cartesian genetic programming , 2010, GECCO.

[14]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Reusing Code in Genetic Programming , 2004, EuroGP.

[15]  Peter J. Angeline,et al.  Multiple Interacting Programs: a Representation for Evolving Complex Behavior , 1998, Cybern. Syst..

[16]  K. Holsinger.  The neutral theory of molecular evolution , 2004 .

[17]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  On the effects of bit-wise neutrality on fitness distance correlation, phenotypic mutation rates and problem hardness , 2007, FOGA'07.

[18]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Parallel Distributed Genetic Programming , 1996 .

[19]  Russell C. Eberhart,et al.  Swarm intelligence for permutation optimization: a case study of n-queens problem , 2003, Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium. SIS'03 (Cat. No.03EX706).

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

[21]  J. Pollack,et al.  Coevolving High-Level Representations , 1993 .

[22]  J. Miller.  An empirical study of the efficiency of learning boolean functions using a Cartesian Genetic Programming approach , 1999 .