Positional Bias Does Not Influence Cartesian Genetic Programming with Crossover

被引:0
|
作者
Cui, Henning [1 ]
Heider, Michael [1 ]
Haehner, Joerg [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Augsburg, D-86159 Augsburg, Germany
来源
PARALLEL PROBLEM SOLVING FROM NATURE-PPSN XVIII, PPSN 2024, PT I | 2024年 / 15148卷
关键词
Cartesian Genetic Programming; CGP; Crossover; Recombination; Positional Bias;
D O I
10.1007/978-3-031-70055-2_10
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
The recombination operator plays an important role in many evolutionary algorithms. However, in Cartesian Genetic Programming (CGP), which is part of the aforementioned category, the usefulness of crossover is contested. In this work, we investigate whether CGP's positional bias actually influences the usefulness of the crossover operator negatively. This bias describes a skewed distribution of CGP's active and inactive nodes, which might lead to destructive behaviours of standard recombination operators. We try to answer our hypothesis by employing one standard CGP implementation and one without the effects of positional bias. Both versions are combined with one of four standard crossover operators, or with no crossover operator. Additionally, two different selection methods are used to configure a CGP variant. We then analyse their performance and convergence behaviour on eight benchmarks taken from the Boolean and symbolic regression domain. By using Bayesian inference, we are able to rank them, and we found that positional bias does not influence CGP with crossover. Furthermore, we argue that the current research on CGP with standard crossover operators is incomplete, and CGP with recombination might not negatively impact its evolutionary search process. On the contrary, using CGP with crossover improves its performance.
引用
收藏
页码:151 / 167
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] FMCGP: frameshift mutation cartesian genetic programming
    Wei Fang
    Mindan Gu
    Complex & Intelligent Systems, 2021, 7 : 1195 - 1206
  • [22] On the Time Complexity of Simple Cartesian Genetic Programming
    Kalkreuth, Roman
    Droschinsky, Andre
    IJCCI: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 11TH INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, 2019, : 172 - 179
  • [23] Refining Mutation Variants in Cartesian Genetic Programming
    Cui, Henning
    Margraf, Andreas
    Haehner, Joerg
    BIOINSPIRED OPTIMIZATION METHODS AND THEIR APPLICATIONS, 2022, 13627 : 185 - 200
  • [24] Cartesian genetic programming: its status and future
    Miller, Julian Francis
    GENETIC PROGRAMMING AND EVOLVABLE MACHINES, 2020, 21 (1-2) : 129 - 168
  • [25] Improving Image Filters with Cartesian Genetic Programming
    Biau, Julien
    Wilson, Dennis
    Cussat-Blanc, Sylvain
    Luga, Herve
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 13TH INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (IJCCI), 2021, : 17 - 27
  • [26] FMCGP: frameshift mutation cartesian genetic programming
    Fang, Wei
    Gu, Mindan
    COMPLEX & INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS, 2021, 7 (03) : 1195 - 1206
  • [27] Cartesian genetic programming: its status and future
    Julian Francis Miller
    Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 2020, 21 : 129 - 168
  • [28] Visualisation and Analysis of Genetic Records Produced by Cartesian Genetic Programming
    Sekanina, Lukas
    Kapusta, Vlastimil
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2016 GENETIC AND EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION CONFERENCE (GECCO'16 COMPANION), 2016, : 1411 - 1418
  • [29] Neutral genetic drift: an investigation using Cartesian Genetic Programming
    Turner, Andrew James
    Miller, Julian Francis
    GENETIC PROGRAMMING AND EVOLVABLE MACHINES, 2015, 16 (04) : 531 - 558
  • [30] Neutral genetic drift: an investigation using Cartesian Genetic Programming
    Andrew James Turner
    Julian Francis Miller
    Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 2015, 16 : 531 - 558