How Far Is It from Here to There? A Distance That Is Coherent with GP Operators
The distance between pairs of individuals is a useful concept in the study of evolutionary algorithms. It is particularly useful to define a distance which is coherent with, i.e. related to, the action of a particular operator. We present the first formal, general definition of this operator-distance coherence. We also propose a new distance function, based on the multi-step transition probability (MSTP), that is coherent with any GP operator for which the one-step transition probability (1STP) between individuals can be defined. We give an algorithm for 1STP in the case of subtree mutation. Because MSTP is useful in GP investigations, but impractical to compute, we evaluate a variety of means to approximate it. We show that some syntactic distance measures give good approximations, and attempt to combine them to improve the approximation using a GP symbolic regression method. We conclude that 1STP itself is a sufficient indicator of MSTP for subtree mutation.
KeywordsDistance Function Genetic Program Pareto Front Operator Application Linear Genetic Programming
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 4.Durrett, G., Neumann, F., O’Reilly, U.M.: Computational complexity analysis of simple genetic programming on two problems modeling isolated program semantics. In: Foundations of Genetic Algorithms (2010)Google Scholar
- 6.Evolved Analytics LLC: DataModeler Release 1.0. Evolved Analytics LLC (2010)Google Scholar
- 8.Igel, C., Chellapilla, K.: Investigating the influence of depth and degree of genotypic change on fitness in genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, vol. 2, pp. 1061–1068 (1999)Google Scholar
- 9.Jones, T.: Evolutionary Algorithms, Fitness Landscapes and Search. Ph.D. thesis, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque (1995)Google Scholar
- 11.Krawiec, K., Lichocki, P.: Approximating geometric crossover in semantic space. In: GECCO 2009: Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pp. 987–994. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
- 12.McDermott, J., Galván-Lopéz, E., O’Neill, M.: A fine-grained view of GP locality with binary decision diagrams as ant phenotypes. In: Schaefer, R., Cotta, C., Kołodziej, J., Rudolph, G. (eds.) PPSN XI. LNCS, vol. 6238, pp. 164–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
- 13.Moraglio, A.: Towards a geometric unification of evolutionary algorithms. Ph.D. thesis, University of Essex (November 2007), http://eden.dei.uc.pt/~moraglio/
- 14.Moraglio, A., Poli, R.: Geometric landscape of homologous crossover for syntactic trees. In: CEC, vol. 1, pp. 427–434. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
- 15.Nguyen, Q.U., Nguyen, X.H., O’Neill, M.: Semantic aware crossover for genetic programming: The case for real-valued function regression. In: Vanneschi, L., Gustafson, S., Moraglio, A., De Falco, I., Ebner, M. (eds.) EuroGP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5481, pp. 292–302. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.O’Reilly, U.M.: Using a distance metric on genetic programs to understand genetic operators. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Computational Cybernetics and Simulation, vol. 5 (1997)Google Scholar
- 18.Vanneschi, L.: Theory and Practice for Efficient Genetic Programming. Ph.D. thesis, Université de Lausanne (2004)Google Scholar
- 19.Vladislavleva, E., Smits, G., Kotanchek, M.: Better solutions faster: Soft evolution of robust regression models in Pareto genetic programming. In: Riolo, R.L., Soule, T., Worzel, B. (eds.) Genetic Programming Theory and Practice V, ch. 2, pp. 13–32. Springer, Ann Arbor (2007)Google Scholar