Oana Muntean
ABSTRACT
The result of the program encoded into a Genetic Programming(GP) tree is usually returned by the root of that tree. However, this is not a general strategy. In this paper we present and investigate a new variant where the best subtree is chosen to provide the solution of the problem. The other nodes (not belonging to the best subtree) are deleted. This will reduce the size of the chromosome in those cases where its best subtree is different from the entire tree. We have tested this strategy on a wide range of regression and classification problems. Numerical experiments have shown that the proposed approach can improve both the search speed and the quality of results.
- D. Andre and A. Teller. A study in program response and the negative effects of introns in genetic programming. Genetic Programming, pages 12--20, 1996. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- T. Blickle and L. Thiele. Genetic programming and redundancy. In J. Hopf, editor, Genetic Algorithms within the Framework of Evolutionary Computation, pages 33--38, Saarbrucken, Germany, 1994. Max--Planck--Institut für Informatik.Google Scholar
- M. Brameier and W. Banzhaf. A comparison of linear genetic programming and neural networks in medical data mining. IEEE--EC, 5(1):17--26, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Breiman. Bias, variance, and arcing classifiers. Technical Report 460, Statistics Department, Berkeley, 1996.Google Scholar
- J. H. Friedman. Multivariate adaptive regression splines. Annals of Statistics, 19(1):1--141, 1991.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. R. Koza. Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. MIT Press, 1992. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Langdon. Quadratic bloat in genetic programming. Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO--2000), pages 451--458, 2000.Google Scholar
- J. Levenick. Inserting introns improves genetic algorithm success rate: Taking a cue from biology. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 123--127, 1991.Google Scholar
- N. McPhee and R. Poli. A Schema Theory Analysis of the Evolution of Size in Genetic Programming with Linear Representations. Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
- J. F. Miller and P. Thomson. Cartesian genetic programming. In R. Poli, W. Banzhaf, W. B. Langdon, J. F. Miller, P. Nordin, and T. C. Fogarty, editors, Proceedings of European Conference on Genetic Programming (EuroGP), volume 1802 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 121--132. Springer-Verlag, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Newman, S. Hettich, C. Blake, and C. Merz. Uci repository of machine learning databases, 1998.Google Scholar
- P. Nordin, W. Banzhaf, and F. Francone. Introns in nature and in simulated structure evolution. Bio-Computation and Emergent Computation, Skovde, Sweden, pages 1--2, 1997.Google Scholar
- P. Nordin, F. Francone, and W. Banzhaf. Explicitly defined introns and destructive crossover in genetic programming. Advances in Genetic Programming, 2:111--134, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Prechelt. PROBEN1 -- A set of benchmarks and benchmarking rules for neural network training algorithms. Technical Report 21/94, University of Karlsruhe, Faculty of Informatics, 1994.Google Scholar
- C. E. Rasmussen, R. M. Neal, G. Hinton, D. van Camp, M. Revow, Z. Ghahramani, K. Kustra, and R. Tibshirani. Data for evaluating learning in valid experiments, 1996.Google Scholar
- G. Syswerda. Uniform crossover in genetic algorithms. In Proceedings of the third international conference on Genetic algorithms, pages 2--9, San Francisco, CA, USA, 1989. Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Syswerda. A study of reproduction in generational and steady state genetic algorithms. In G. J. E. Rawlins, editor, Proceedings of Foundations of Genetic Algorithms Conference, pages 94--101. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.Google Scholar
- D. H. Wolpert and W. G. Macready. No free lunch theorems for search. Technical Report SFI--TR--95--02--010, Santa Fe Institute, 1995.Google Scholar
- D. H. Wolpert and W. G. Macready. No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 1(1):67--82, 1997. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Best SubTree genetic programming
Recommendations
Building boosted classification tree ensemble with genetic programming
GECCO '18: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference CompanionAdaptive boosting (AdaBoost) is a method for building classification ensemble, which combines multiple classifiers built in an iterative process of reweighting instances. This method proves to be a very effective classification method, therefore it was ...
General schema theory for genetic programming with subtree-swapping crossover: Part II
This paper is the second part of a two-part paper which introduces a general schema theory for genetic programming (GP) with subtree-swapping crossover (Part I (Poli and McPhee, 2003)). Like other recent GP schema theory results, the theory gives an ...
Non-isomorphic caterpillars with identical subtree data
The greedoid Tutte polynomial of a tree is equivalent to a generating function that encodes information about the number of subtrees with I internal (non-leaf) edges and L leaf edges, for all I and L. We prove that this information does not uniquely ...
Comments