Analyzing Module Usage in Grammatical Evolution

Being able to exploit modularity in genetic programming (GP) is an open issue and a promising vein of research. Previous work has identified a variety of methods of finding and using modules, but little is reported on how the modules are being used in order to yield the observed performance gains. In this work, multiple methods for identifying modules are applied to some common, dynamic benchmark problems. Results show there is little difference in the performance of the approaches. However, trends in how modules are used and how "good" individuals use these modules are seen. These trends indicate that discovered modules can be used frequently and by good individuals. Further examination of the modules uncovers that useful as well as unhelpful modules are discovered and used frequently. The results suggest directions for future work in improving module manipulation via crossover and mutation and module usage in the population.

[1]  Anthony Brabazon,et al.  A non-destructive grammar modification approach to modularity in grammatical evolution , 2011, GECCO '11.

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

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

[4]  Justinian P. Rosca,et al.  Discovery of subroutines in genetic programming , 1996 .

[5]  Anthony Brabazon,et al.  Foundations in Grammatical Evolution for Dynamic Environments , 2009, Studies in Computational Intelligence.

[6]  Julian Francis Miller,et al.  The Automatic Acquisition, Evolution and Reuse of Modules in Cartesian Genetic Programming , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[7]  Uri Alon,et al.  An Analytically Solvable Model for Rapid Evolution of Modular Structure , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[8]  N. Chater,et al.  Proceedings of the fourteenth annual conference of the cognitive science society , 1992 .

[9]  Anthony Brabazon,et al.  A comparison of GE and TAGE in dynamic environments , 2011, GECCO '11.

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

[11]  Alan Blair,et al.  Dynamically Defined Functions In Grammatical Evolution , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[12]  Uri Alon,et al.  Varying environments can speed up evolution , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  Conor Ryan,et al.  Survey Of Evolutionary Automatic Programming , 2003 .

[14]  Anthony Brabazon,et al.  Comparing methods for module identification in grammatical evolution , 2012, GECCO '12.

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

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

[17]  U. Alon,et al.  Extinctions in Heterogeneous Environments and the Evolution of Modularity , 2009, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[18]  Anthony Brabazon,et al.  Dynamic environments can speed up evolution with genetic programming , 2011, GECCO.