Advertisement

Genetic Algorithms Using Grammatical Evolution

  • Conor Ryan
  • Miguel Nicolau
  • Michael O’Neill
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2278)

Abstract

This paper describes the GAUGE system, Genetic Algorithms Using Grammatical Evolution. GAUGE is a position independent Genetic Algorithm that uses Grammatical Evolution with an attribute grammar to dictate what position a gene codes for. GAUGE suffers from neither under-specification nor over-specification, is guaranteed to produce syntactically correct individuals, and does not require any repair after the application of genetic operators.

GAUGE is applied to the standard onemax problem, with results showing that its genotype to phenotype mapping and position independence nature do not affect its performance as a normal genetic algorithm. A new problem is also presented, a deceptive version of the Mastermind game, and we show that GAUGE possesses the position independence characteristics it claims, and outperforms several genetic algorithms, including the competent genetic algorithm messyGA.

Keywords

Genetic Algorithm Automatic Programming Grammatical Evolution Attribute Grammar Codon Pair 
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.
    Bernier, J.L., Ilia Herraiz, C. Merelo, J.J., Olmeda, S., Prieto, A. 1996.Solving MasterMind using GAs and simulated annealing:a case of dynamic constraint optimization. In Proceedings PPSN, Parallel Problem Solving from Nature IV, LNCS 1141, pp. 554-563. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deb, K., Goldberg, D.E. 1991.mGA in C:A Messy Genetic Algorithm in C. Illinois Genetic Algorithms Laboratory (IlliGAL), report no. 91008.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldberg, David E. 1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldberg, D.E., Deb, K., and Korb, B. 1991. Don ’t worry, be messy. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms (San Mateo, CA), R. Belew and L. Booker, Eds., Morgan Kaufman, pp. 24–30Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holland, J.H. 1975.Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Kargupta, H., Deb, K., Goldberg, D.E. 1992. Ordering genetic algorithms and deceptions. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature-PPSN II (pp.47-56).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Knjazew, D., and Goldberg, D.E.2000.OMEGA-Ordering Messy GA: Solving Problems with the Fast Messy Genetic Algorithm and Random Keys. In GECCO-2000: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, Morgan Kaufman, pp. 181–188Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koza, J. 1992. Genetic Pro ramming. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nelson, T. 1999. Investigations into the Master Mind Board Game. Website:http://www.tnelson.demon.co.uk/mastermind/index.html.
  11. 11.
    O’Neill M., Ryan C. 2001. Grammatical Evolution. IEEE Trans. Evolutionary Computation Vol. 5 No. 4, August 2001.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ryan C., Collins J.J., O’Neill M. 1998. Grammatical Evolution:Evolving Programs for an Arbitrary Language. LNCS 1391, Proceedings of the First European Workshop on Genetic Pro ramming, pages 83–95. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Conor Ryan
    • 1
  • Miguel Nicolau
    • 1
  • Michael O’Neill
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Information SystemsUniversity of LimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations