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
  • [41] Control system synthesis by means of Cartesian Genetic Programming
    Balandina, G. I.
    XII INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS 2016, (INTELS 2016), 2017, 103 : 176 - 182
  • [42] Accelerating Convergence in Cartesian Genetic Programming by Using a New Genetic Operator
    Meier, Andreas
    Gonter, Mark
    Kruse, Rudolf
    GECCO'13: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2013 GENETIC AND EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION CONFERENCE, 2013, : 981 - 988
  • [43] Adaptive Fitness Predictors in Coevolutionary Cartesian Genetic Programming
    Drahosova, Michaela
    Sekanina, Lukas
    Wiglasz, Michal
    EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION, 2019, 27 (03) : 497 - 523
  • [44] Cartesian genetic programming and the post docking filtering problem
    Garmendia-Doval, AB
    Miller, JF
    Morley, SD
    GENETIC PROGRAMMING THEORY AND PRACTICE II, 2005, 8 : 225 - 244
  • [45] Adaptive Sampling of Biomedical Images with Cartesian Genetic Programming
    Lavinas, Yuri
    Haut, Nathan
    Punch, William
    Banzhaf, Wolfgang
    Cussat-Blanc, Sylvain
    PARALLEL PROBLEM SOLVING FROM NATURE-PPSN XVIII, PPSN 2024, PT I, 2024, 15148 : 256 - 272
  • [46] Investigating the Baldwin Effect on Cartesian Genetic Programming Efficiency
    Khatir, Mehrdad
    Jahangir, Amir Hossein
    Beigy, Hamid
    2008 IEEE CONGRESS ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION, VOLS 1-8, 2008, : 2360 - 2364
  • [47] Investigating the performance of module acquisition in Cartesian Genetic Programming
    Walker, James Alfred
    Miller, Julian Francis
    GECCO 2005: GENETIC AND EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION CONFERENCE, VOLS 1 AND 2, 2005, : 1649 - 1656
  • [48] On the roles of semantic locality of crossover in genetic programming
    Nguyen Quang Uy
    Nguyen Xuan Hoai
    O'Neill, Michael
    McKay, R. I.
    Dao Ngoc Phong
    INFORMATION SCIENCES, 2013, 235 : 195 - 213
  • [49] Solving Real-valued Optimisation Problems using Cartesian Genetic Programming Genetic Programming Track
    Walker, James Alfred
    Miller, Julian Francis
    GECCO 2007: GENETIC AND EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION CONFERENCE, VOL 1 AND 2, 2007, : 1724 - 1730
  • [50] Human Activity Recognition Using Parallel Cartesian Genetic Programming
    Silva, Bruno M. P.
    Bernardino, Heder S.
    Barbosa, Helio J. C.
    2021 IEEE CONGRESS ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION (CEC 2021), 2021, : 474 - 481