Multi-objective methods for tree size control

被引:49
作者
Edwin D. de Jong
Jordan B. Pollack
机构
[1] Department of Computer Science, Brandeis University, Waltham
[2] Utrecht University, Inst. of Info./Coumputing Sciences, Decision Support Systems Group
关键词
Bloat; Code growth; Genetic programming; Interpretability; Multi-objective optimization; Pareto optimality; Variable size representations;
D O I
10.1023/A:1025122906870
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Variable length methods for evolutionary computation can lead to a progressive and mainly unnecessary growth of individuals, known as bloat. First, we propose to measure performance in genetic programming as a function of the number of nodes, rather than trees, that have been evaluated. Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimization (EMOO) constitutes a principled way to optimize both size and fitness and may provide parameterless size control. Reportedly, its use can also lead to minimization of size at the expense of fitness. We replicate this problem, and an empirical analysis suggests that multi-objective size control particularly requires diversity maintenance. Experiments support this explanation. The multi-objective approach is compared to genetic programming without size control on the 11-multiplexer, 6-parity, and a symbolic regression problem. On all three test problems, the method greatly reduces bloat and significantly improves fitness as a function of computational expense. Using the FOCUS algorithm, multi-objective size control is combined with active pursuit of diversity, and hypothesized minimum-size solutions to 3-, 4- and 5-parity are found. The solutions thus found are furthermore easily interpretable. When combined with diversity maintenance, EMOO can provide an adequate and parameterless approach to size control in variable length evolution.
引用
收藏
页码:211 / 233
页数:22
相关论文
共 46 条
[31]  
Mahfoud S.W., Niching methods for genetic algorithms, IlIiGAL Report 95001
[32]  
McPhee N.F., Miller J.D., Accurate replication in genetic programming, Genetic Algorithms: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference, ICGA-95, pp. 303-309, (1995)
[33]  
Nordin P., Banzhaf W., Complexity compression and evolution, Genetic Algorithms: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference, ICGA-95, pp. 310-317, (1995)
[34]  
Nordin P., Francone F., Banzhaf W., Explicitly defined introns and destructive crossover in genetic programming, Advances in Genetic Programming, 2, pp. 111-134, (1996)
[35]  
Olsson R., Inductive functional programming using incremental program transformation, Artificial Intelligence, 74, 1, pp. 55-81, (1995)
[36]  
Poli R., Discovery of symbolic, neuro-symbolic and neural networks with parallel distributed genetic programming. In 3rd international conference on artifical neural networks and genetic algorithms, ICANNGA'97, (1997)
[37]  
Poli R., McPhee N.F., Exact schema theorems for gp with one-point and standard crossover operating on linear structures and their application to the study of the evolution of size, Genetic Programming. 4th European Conference, EuroGP 2001, pp. 126-142, (2001)
[38]  
Rodriguez-Vazquez K., Fonseca C.M., Fleming P.J., Multi-objective genetic programming: A nonlinear system identification application, 1997 Genetic Programming Conference, pp. 207-212, (1997)
[39]  
Rosca J., Generality versus size in genetic programming, Genetic Programming 1996: Proceedings of the First Annual Conference, pp. 381-387, (1996)
[40]  
Schaffer J.D., Multiple objective optimization with vector evaluated genetic algorithms, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Genetic Algorithms and Their Applications, pp. 93-100, (1985)