BASED MUTATION IN GENETIC PROGRAMMING : THE CASE FOR REAL-VALUED SYMBOLIC REGRESSION

In this paper we propose two new methods for implementing the mutation operator in Genetic Programming called Semantic Aware Mutation (SAM) and Semantic Similarity based M utation (SSM). SAM is inspired by our previous work on a semantics based crossover called Semantic Aware Crossove r (SAC) [19] and SSM is an extension of SAM by adding more control on the change of semantics of the subtrees invol ved in mutation operation. We apply these two new mutation operators to a class of real-valued symbolic regression pro blems and compare them with the Standard Mutation (SM) of Koza [13]. The results from the experiments show that while S AM does not help to improve the performance of Genetic Programming, SSM helps to significantly enhance Genetic Pro gramming performance on the problems tried. The experiment results also show that the change of the semantics (fitne ss) in SSM is smoother than ones of both SAM and SM. This, we argue that is the main reason to the significant performanc e improvement of SSM over SAM and SC.

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

[2]  Doron A. Peled,et al.  Model Checking-Based Genetic Programming with an Application to Mutual Exclusion , 2008, TACAS.

[3]  Nguyen Xuan Hoai,et al.  Solving the symbolic regression problem with tree-adjunct grammar guided genetic programming: the comparative results , 2002, Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC'02 (Cat. No.02TH8600).

[4]  S. Luke,et al.  A Comparison of Crossover and Mutation in Genetic Programming , 1997 .

[5]  Alfonso Ortega,et al.  Attribute Grammar Evolution , 2005, IWINAC.

[6]  Franz Rothlauf,et al.  On the Locality of Grammatical Evolution , 2006, EuroGP.

[7]  Colin G. Johnson,et al.  Genetic Programming with Fitness Based on Model Checking , 2007, EuroGP.

[8]  Simon M. Poulding,et al.  A Rigorous Evaluation of Crossover and Mutation in Genetic Programming , 2009, EuroGP.

[9]  K. E. Kinnear,et al.  Evolving a sort: lessons in genetic programming , 1993, IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks.

[10]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Self-Adaptation in Real-Parameter Genetic Algorithms with Simulated Binary Crossover , 1999, GECCO.

[11]  Michael O'Neill,et al.  Semantic Aware Crossover for Genetic Programming: The Case for Real-Valued Function Regression , 2009, EuroGP.

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

[13]  Nicholas Freitag McPhee,et al.  Semantic Building Blocks in Genetic Programming , 2008, EuroGP.

[14]  Michael O'Neill,et al.  An Attribute Grammar Decoder for the 01 MultiConstrained Knapsack Problem , 2005, EvoCOP.

[15]  Colin G. Johnson,et al.  Semantically driven crossover in genetic programming , 2008, 2008 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence).

[16]  Colin G. Johnson.  Deriving Genetic Programming Fitness Properties by Static Analysis , 2002, EuroGP.

[17]  Doron A. Peled,et al.  Genetic Programming and Model Checking: Synthesizing New Mutual Exclusion Algorithms , 2008, ATVA.

[18]  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).

[19]  Kwong-Sak Leung,et al.  An induction system that learns programs in different programming languages using genetic programming and logic grammars , 1995, Proceedings of 7th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence.

[20]  Colin G. Johnson.  What can automatic programming learn from theoretical computer science , 2002 .