Advertisement

A Puzzle to Challenge Genetic Programming

  • Edmund Burke
  • Steven Gustafson
  • Graham Kendall
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2278)

Abstract

This report represents an initial investigation into the use of genetic programming to solve the N-prisoners puzzle. The puzzle has generated a certain level of interest among the mathematical community. We believe that this puzzle presents a significant challenge to the field of evolutionary computation and to genetic programming in particular. The overall aim is to generate a solution that encodes complex decision making. Our initial results demonstrate that genetic programming can evolve good solutions. We compare these results to engineered solutions and discuss some of the implications. One of the consequences of this study is that it has highlighted a number of research issues and directions and challenges for the evolutionary computation community. We conclude the article by presenting some of these directions which range over several areas of evolutionary computation, including multi-objective fitness, coevolution and cooperation, and problem representations.

Keywords

Genetic Programming Evolutionary Computation Maximum Clique Parity Check Code Word 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    W.F. Punch, D. Zongker, and E.D. Goodman. The roya tree problem, a benchmark for single and multi-population genetic programming. In P.J. Angeline and K.E. Kinnear, Jr., editors, Advances in Genetic Programming 2, chapter 15, pages 299–316. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    W.B. Langdon. Data Structures and Genetic Programming:Genetic Programming + Data Structures =Automatic Programming!, volume 1 of Genetic Programming. Kluwer, Boston, 24 April 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J.R. Koza. Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Koza, F. Bennett, and D. Andre. Using programmatic motifs and genetic programming to classify protein sequences as to extracellular and membrane cellular location. In V. William Porto et al, editor, Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference on Evolutionary Programming, volume 1447 of LNCS, San Diego, California, USA, 25–27 March 1998. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.M. Daida, J.A. Polito, S.A. Stanhope, R.R. Bertram, J.C. Khoo, and S.A. Chaudhary. What makes a problem GP-hard? analysis of a tunably difficult problem in genetic programming. In Wolfgang Banzhaf et al, editor, Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, volume 2, pages 982–989, Orlando, Florida, USA, 13–17 July 1999. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Luke. Genetic programming produced competitive soccer softbot teams for robocup97. In J.R. Koza et al, editor, Genetic Programming 1998: Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference, pages 214–222, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 22–25 July 1998. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Andre and A. Teller. Evolving Team Darwin United. In M. Asada and H. Kitano, editors, RoboCup-98: Robot Soccer World Cup II, volume 1604 of LNCS, pages 346–351, Paris, France, July 1998 1999. Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S.M. Gustafson and W.H. Hsu. Layered learning in genetic programming for a co-operative robot soccer problem. In J.F. Miller et al, editor, Proceedings of the European Conference on Genetic Programming, volume 2038 of LNCS, Lake Como, Italy, April 2001. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. Soule, J.A. Foster, and J. Dickinson. Using genetic programming to approximate maximum clique. In J.R. Koza et al, editor, Genetic Programming 1996: Proceedings of the First Annual Conference, pages 400–405, Stanford University, CA, USA, 28–31 July 1996. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. Ebert. Applications of Recursive Operators to Randomness and Complexity. Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Santa Barbara, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. Ebert. On the autoreducibility of random sequences. Unpublished. http://www.ics.uci.edu/.ebert/, 2001.
  12. 12.
    S. Robinson. Why mathematicians now care about their hat color. The New York Times:Science Desk, 10 April 2001.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R.W. Hamming. Coding and Information Theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc, New Jersey, USA, 1980.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Luke. Issues in Scaling Genetic Programming: Breeding Strategies, Tree Generation, and Code Bloat. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 USA, 2000.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J.D. Knowles, R.A. Watson, and D.W. Corne. Reducing Local Optima in Single-Objective Problems by Multi-objectivization. In E. Zitzler et al, editor, First International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization, pages 268–282. Springer-Verlag. LNCS no. 1993, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edmund Burke
    • 1
  • Steven Gustafson
    • 1
  • Graham Kendall
    • 1
  1. 1.ASAP Research, School of Computer Science & ITUniversity of NottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations