Skip to main content

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Decimation and Automatically Defined Functions

  • Conference paper
Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems (KES 2005)

Abstract

Decimation and automatically defined functions are intended to improve the fitness of the generated programs and to increase the rate of convergence to the solution. Each method has an associated computational cost, the cost for automatically defined functions being considerably higher than for decimation. This paper compares the performance improvements in genetic programming provided by automatically defined functions with that of decimation on four common benchmark problems – the Santa Fe ant, the lawnmower, even 3-bit parity and a symbolic regression problem. The results indicate that decimation provides improvement in performance that justifies the additional computation but the added computational effort required for automatically defined functions is not justified by any performance improvements.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aler, R.: Immediate Transfer of Global Improvements to All Individuals in a Population Compared to Automatically Defined Functions for the EVEN-5, 6-PARITY Problems. In: Banzhaf, W., Poli, R., Schoenauer, M., Fogarty, T.C. (eds.) EuroGP 1998. LNCS, vol. 1391, pp. 60–70. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Angeline, P.J.: An investigation into the sensitivity of genetic programming to the frequency of leaf selection during subtree crossover. In: Koza, J.R., Goldberg, D.E., Fogel, D.B., Riolo, R.L. (eds.) Genetic Programming 1996: Proceedings of the First Annual Conference, Stanford University, CA, USA, July 1996, pp. 21–29. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Carbajal, S., Martinez, G.: Evolutive Introns: A Non-Costly Method of Using Introns in GP. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 2(2), 111–122 (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Ciesielski, V., Li, X.: Pyramid Search: Finding solutions for deceptive problems quickly in genetic programming. In: Sarker, R., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2003 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC 2003), pp. 936–943. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. D’haeseleer, P.: Context preserving crossover in genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, vol. 1, pp. 256–261. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1994)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Eiben, A., Marchiori, E., Valko, V.: Evolutionary Algorithms with on-the-fly population size adjustment. In: Yao, X., et al. (eds.) PPSN 2004. LNCS, vol. 3242, pp. 41–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Koza, J.: Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Koza, J.R.: Genetic Programming II: Automatic Discovery of Reusable Programs. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Langdon, W., Poli, R.: Why ants are hard. In: Koza, J., et al. (eds.) Genetic Programming 1998: Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference, pp. 193–201. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Nanduri, D.T.: Comparison of the Effectiveness of Decimation and Automatically Defined Functions. Masters Thesis, RMIT Department of Computer Science (2005), http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/~vc/papers/nanduri-mbc.pdf

  11. Rodrigues, E., Pozo, A.: Grammar-Guided Genetic Programming and Automatically Defined Functions. In: Bittencourt, G., Ramalho, G.L. (eds.) SBIA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2507, pp. 324–333. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  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-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Nanduri, D.T., Ciesielski, V. (2005). Comparison of the Effectiveness of Decimation and Automatically Defined Functions. In: Khosla, R., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds) Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems. KES 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3683. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11553939_77

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11553939_77

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-28896-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31990-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics