The Best Things Don't Always Come in Small Packages: Constant Creation in Grammatical Evolution

This paper evaluates the performance of various methods to constant creation in Grammatical Evolution GE, and validates the results against those from Genetic Programming GP. Constant creation in GE is an important issue due to the disruptive nature of ripple crossover, which can radically remap multiple terminals in an individual, and we investigate if more compact methods, which are more similar to the GP style of constant creation Ephemeral Random Constants ERCs, perform better. The results are surprising. The GE methods all perform significantly better than GP on unseen test data, and we demonstrate that the standard GE approach of digit concatenation does not produce individuals that are any larger than those from methods which are designed to use less genetic material.

[1]  Conor Ryan,et al.  On Improving Generalisation in Genetic Programming , 2009, EuroGP.

[2]  John R. Koza,et al.  Genetic Programming II , 1992 .

[3]  André da Motta Salles Barreto,et al.  Evolving Numerical Constants in Grammatical Evolution with the Ephemeral Constant Method , 2011, EPIA.

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

[5]  Maarten Keijzer,et al.  Crossover in Grammatical Evolution , 2003, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[6]  Dick den Hertog,et al.  Order of Nonlinearity as a Complexity Measure for Models Generated by Symbolic Regression via Pareto Genetic Programming , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

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

[8]  Dominic P. Searson,et al.  Non-linear continuum regression using genetic programming , 1999 .

[9]  Conor Ryan,et al.  An Analysis of Diversity of Constants of Genetic Programming , 2003, EuroGP.

[10]  Vladan Babovic,et al.  Genetic Programming, Ensemble Methods and the Bias/Variance Tradeoff - Introductory Investigations , 2000, EuroGP.

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

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

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

[14]  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.

[15]  Anthony Brabazon,et al.  Analysis of constant creation techniques on the binomial-3 problem with grammatical evolution , 2009, 2009 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[16]  Anthony Brabazon,et al.  Constant creation in grammatical evolution , 2007 .

[17]  A. Campbell,et al.  Progress in Artificial Intelligence , 1995, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[18]  A. Topchy,et al.  Faster genetic programming based on local gradient search of numeric leaf values , 2001 .

[19]  Matthew P. Evett,et al.  Numeric Mutation Improves the Discovery of Numeric Constants in Genetic Programming , 2007 .

[20]  André da Motta Salles Barreto,et al.  A new approach for generating numerical constants in grammatical evolution , 2011, GECCO.