Abstract
The exploration–exploitation trade-off is an important aspect of evolutionary algorithms which determines the efficiency and accuracy of these algorithms. Cartesian Genetic Programming (CGP) is a generalization of the graph based genetic programming. It is implemented with mutation only and does not have any possibility to share information among solutions. The main goal of this paper is to present an effective method for balancing the exploration and exploitation of CGP referred to as Balanced Cartesian Genetic Programming (BCGP) by incorporating distinctive features from biogeography-based optimization (BBO) and opposition-based learning. To achieve this goal, we apply BBO’s migration operator without considering any modifications in the representation of CGP. This operator has good exploitation ability and can be used to share information among individuals in CGP. In addition, in order to improve the exploration ability of CGP, a new mutation operator is integrated into CGP inspired from the concept of opposition-based learning. Experiments have been conducted on symbolic regression. The experimental results show that the proposed BCGP method outperforms the traditional CGP in terms of accuracy and the convergence speed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
CGP work best using 1 + lambda.
References
A.P. Engelbrecht, Computational Intelligence, an Introduction, 2nd edn. (Wiley, New York, 2007)
T. Weise, Global Optimization Algorithms—Theory and Application. Available: http://www.it-weise.de, 2009
J.R. Koza, Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1992)
J.R. Koza, Genetic Programming: A Paradigm for Genetically Breeding Populations of Computer Programs to Solve Problems. Technical Report STAN-CS-90-1314, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, 1990
J.M. Daida, T.F. Bersano-Begey, S.J. Ross, J.F. Vesecky, Evolving feature-extraction algorithms: adapting genetic programming for image analysis in geoscience and remote sensing. Geosci. Remote Sens. Symp. Remote Sens. Sustain. Future 4, 2077–2079 (1996)
D. Howard, S.C. Roberts, Object Detection by Multiple Textural Analyzers. Evolutionary Computation, Washington, DC, vol. 2, pp. 850–854, 6–9 July 1999
M. Kotani, M. Nakai and K. Akazawa, Feature extraction using evolutionary computation. In Evolutionary Computation, Washington, DC, USA, vol. 2, pp. 1230–1236, 6–9 July 1999
J. Koza, Simultaneous discovery of detectors and a way of using the detectors via genetic programming. in IEEE International Conference, vol. 3, pp. 1794–1801, 28 March–1 April, 1993
M.M. Rizki, M.A. Zmuda, L.A. Tamburino, Evolving pattern recognition systems. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6(6), 594–609 (2002)
F. Fernandez, M. Tomassini, L. Vanneschni, Saving computational effort in genetic programming by means of plagues. in Proceedings of the 2003 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 3, pp. 2042–2049, 8–12 Dec 2003
H. Guo, A.K. Nandi, Breast cancer diagnosis using genetic programming generated feature. in 2005 IEEE Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing, pp. 215–220, 28–30 Sept 2005
J.H. Hong, S.B. Cho, The classification of cancer based on DNA microarray data that uses diverse ensemble genetic programming. Artif. Intell. Med. 36(1), 43–58 (2006)
R. Seehuus, Protein motif discovery with linear genetic programming. Knowledge-based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems, PT 3. in Proceedings Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3683, pp. 770–776, 2005
J. Imae, S. Nakatani, J. Takahashi, A design method for optimal controllers of minimax problems: a genetic programming approach. in American Control Conference, vol. 6, pp. 5394–5399, 4–6 June 2003
Y. Jessen, M.A. Keane, J.R. Koza, Automatic design of both topology and tuning of a common parameterized controller for two families of plants using genetic programming. in Proceedings of Eleventh IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Aided Control System Design (CACSD) Conference and Ninth IEEE International Conference on Control Applications (CCA) Conference, vol. 11, pp. 234–242, 25–27 Sept 2000
K.A. Marko, R.J. Hampo, Application of genetic programming to control of vehicle systems. in Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Detroit, MI, USA, vol. 1, pp. 191–195, 29 June–1 July 1992
K.-J. Lee, B.-T. Zhang, Learning Robot Behaviors by Evolving Genetic Programs. Industrial Electronics Society. Control and Instrumentation (IECON-2000), vol. 4, pp. 2867–2872, 2000
M.C. Martin, Genetic programming for real world robot vision. in Intelligent Robots and System, IEEE International Conference, vol. 1, pp. 67–72, 30 Sept–5 Oct 2002
C.H. Messom, M.G. Walker, Evolving cooperative robotic behaviour using distributed genetic programming. Control Autom. Robot. Vision 1, 215–219 (2002)
P. Kouchakpour, A. Zaknich, T. Braunl, Population variation in genetic programming. Inf. Sci. 177(17), 3438–3452 (2007)
J.A. Walker, J.F. Miller, Automatic acquisition, evolution and reuse of modules in Cartesian genetic programming. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 12(4), 397–417 (2008)
J. F. Miller, P. Thomson, Cartesian genetic programming. in Proceedings of 3rd European Conference on Genetic Programming (EuroGP 2000), vol. 1802, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 121–132, Edinburgh, 2000
J. Clegg, J.A. Walker, J.F. Miller, A new crossover technique for Cartesian genetic programming. in Proceedings of GECCO, pp. 1580–1587, 2007
D. Simon, Biogeography-based optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 12, 702–713 (2008)
H. Ma, D. Simon, “Blended biogeography-based optimization for constrained optimization. Eng. Appl. AI 24(3), 517–525 (2011)
H. Tizhoosh, Opposition-based learning: a new scheme for machine intelligence. in Proceedings of International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Modeling Control and Automation, vol. 1, pp. 695–701, 2005
T. Yu, J.F. Miller, Neutrality and the evolvability of boolean function landscape. in Proceedings on EuroGP, pp. 204–217, 2001
J. F. Miller, What bloat? Cartesian Genetic Programming on Boolean problems. in Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Late Breaking Papers, pp. 295–302, 2001
M. Ergezer, D. Simon, D. Du, Oppositional biogeography-based optimization. in Proceedings on SMC, pp. 1009–1014, 2009
S. Rahnamayan, H.R. Tizhoosh, M.M.A. Salama, Quasi-oppositional differential evolution. in Proceedings of IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 2229–2236, 2007
N.Q. Uy, N.X. Hoai, M. O’Neill, R.I. McKay, E. Galvan- Lopez, Semantically-based crossover in genetic programming: application to real-valued symbolic regression. Genet. Program Evolvable Mach. 12(2), 91–119 (2011)
J. F. Miller, Cartesian Genetic Programming. (Springer, Berlin, 2011)
S. Rahnamayan, H.R. Tizhoosh, M.M.A. Salama, Opposition-based differential evolution. in IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 12, pp. 64–79, 2008
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yazdani, S., Shanbehzadeh, J. Balanced Cartesian Genetic Programming via migration and opposition-based learning: application to symbolic regression. Genet Program Evolvable Mach 16, 133–150 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10710-014-9230-4
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10710-014-9230-4