Skip to main content

Population Sizing for Genetic Programming Based on Decision-Making

  • Chapter
Genetic Programming Theory and Practice II

Part of the book series: Genetic Programming ((GPEM,volume 8))

Abstract

This chapter derives a population sizing relationship for genetic programming (GP). Following the population-sizing derivation for genetic algorithms in (Goldberg et al., 1992), it considers building block decision-making as a key facet. The analysis yields a GP-unique relationship because it has to account for bloat and for the fact that GP solutions often use subsolutions multiple times. The population-sizing relationship depends upon tree size, solution complexity, problem difficulty and building block expression probability. The relationship is used to analyze and empirically investigate population sizing for three model GP problems named ORDER, ON-OFF and LOUD. These problems exhibit bloat to differing extents and differ in whether their solutions require the use of a building block multiple times.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Cantú-Paz, E. (2000). Efficient and accurate parallel genetic algorithms. Kluwer Academic Pub, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantú-Paz, Erick, Foster, James A., Deb, Kalyanmoy, Davis, Lawrence, Roy, Rajkumar, O’Reilly, Una-May, Beyer, Hans-Georg, Standish, Russell K., Kendall, Graham, Wilson, Stewart W., Harman, Mark, Wegener, Joachim, Dasgupta, Dipankar, Potter, Mitchell A., Schultz, Alan C, Dowsland, Kathryn A., Jonoska, Natasa, and Miller, Julian R, editors (2003). Genetic and Evolutionary Computation — GECCO 2003, Part II, volume 2724 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, K. A. (1975). An analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Ann-Arbor, MI. (University Microfilms No. 76-9381).

    Google Scholar 

  • Feller, W. (1970). An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications. Wiley, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, D. E. (2002). The Design of Innovation: Lessons from and for Competent Genetic Algorithms. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, D. E., Deb, K., and Clark, J. H. (1992). Genetic algorithms, noise, and the sizing of populations. Complex Systems, 6(4):333–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, D. E. and Rudnick, M. (1991). Genetic algorithms and the variance of fitness. Complex Systems, 5(3):265–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, David E. and O’Reilly, Una-May (1998). Where does the good stuff go, and why? how contextual semantics influence program structure in simple genetic programming. In Banzhaf, Wolfgang, Poli, Riccardo, Schoenauer, Marc, and Fogarty, Terence C., editors, Proceedings of the First European Workshop on Genetic Programming, volume 1391 of LNCS, pages 16–36, Paris. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harik, G., Cantu-Paz, E., Goldberg, D. E., and Miller, B. L. (1999). The gambler’s ruin problem, genetic algorithms, and the sizing of populations. Evolutionary Computation, 7(3):231–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. H. (1973). Genetic algorithms and the optimal allocation of trials. SI AM Journal on Computing, 2(2):88–105.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Keijzer, Maarten, O’Reilly, Una-May, Lucas, Simon M., Costa, Ernesto, and Soule, Terence, editors (2004). Genetic Programming 7th European Conference, EuroGP 2004, Proceedings, volume 3003 of LNCS, Coimbra, Portugal. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langdon, W. B. and Poli, Riccardo (2002). Foundations of Genetic Programming. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luke, Sean (2000a). Code growth is not caused by introns. In Whitley, Darrell, editor, Late Breaking Papers at the 2000 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, pages 228–235, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luke, Sean (2000b). Issues in Scaling Genetic Programming: Breeding Strategies, Tree Generation, and Code Bloat. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, A. V. Williams Building, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, B. L. (1997). Noise, Sampling, and Efficient Genetic Algorithms. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, General Engineering Department, Urbana, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, Una-May and Goldberg, David E. (1998). How fitness structure affects subsolution acquisition in genetic programming. In Koza, John R., Banzhaf, Wolfgang, Chellapilla, Kumar, Deb, Kalyanmoy, Dorigo, Marco, Fogel, David B., Garzon, Max H., Goldberg, David E., Iba, Hitoshi, and Riolo, Rick, editors, Genetic Programming 1998: Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference, pages 269–277, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, P., Minsker, B. S., and Goldberg, D. E. (2000). Designing a competent simple genetic algorithm for search and optimization. Water Resources Research, 36(12):3757–3761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riolo, Rick L. and Worzel, Bill (2003). Genetic Programming Theory and Practice. Genetic Programming Series. Kluwer, Boston, MA, USA. Series Editor-John Koza.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sastry, K. (2001). Evaluation-relaxation schemes for genetic and evolutionary algorithms. Master’s thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, General Engineering Department, Urbana, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sastry, K., O’Reilly, U.-M., and Goldberg, D. E. (2004). Population sizing for genetic programming based on decision making. IlliGAL Report No. 2004026, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sastry, Kumara, O’Reilly, Una-May, Goldberg, David E., and Hill, David (2003). Building block supply in genetic programming. In Riolo, Rick L. and Worzel, Bill, editors, Genetic Programming Theory and Practice, chapter 9, pages 137–154. Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soule, Terence (2003). Operator choice and the evolution of robust solutions. In Riolo, Rick L. and Worzel, Bill, editors, Genetic Programming Theory and Practise, chapter 16, pages 257–270. Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soule, Terence and Heckendorn, Robert B. (2002). An analysis of the causes of code growth in genetic programming. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 3(3):283–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sastry, K., O’Reilly, UM., Goldberg, D.E. (2005). Population Sizing for Genetic Programming Based on Decision-Making. In: O’Reilly, UM., Yu, T., Riolo, R., Worzel, B. (eds) Genetic Programming Theory and Practice II. Genetic Programming, vol 8. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23254-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23254-0_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-23253-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-23254-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics