Skip to main content

Comparing subtree crossover with macromutation

  • Genetic Programming: Issues and Applications
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Evolutionary Programming VI (EP 1997)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1213))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In genetic programming, crossover swaps randomly selected subtrees between parents. Recent work in genetic algorithms ([13]) demonstrates that when one of the parents selected for crossover is replaced with a randomly generated parent, the algorithm performs as well or better than crossover for some problems. [13] termed this form of macromutation headless chicken crossover. The following paper investigates two forms of headless chicken crossover for manipulating parse trees and shows that both types of macromutation perform as well or better than standard subtree crossover. It is argued that these experiments support the hypothesis that the building block hypothesis is not descriptive of the operation of subtree crossover.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Angeline, P. J. (1994). Genetic Programming and Emergent Intelligence. In Advances in Genetic Programming, K. Kinnear (ed.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 75–96.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Angeline, P. J. (1996). Two Self-Adaptive Crossover Operations for Genetic Programming. In Advances in Genetic Programming: Volume II, P. Angeline and K. Kinnear (eds.), Cambridge MA: MIT Press, pp. 89–110.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Angeline, P. J. (1996). An Investigation into the Sensitivity of Genetic Programming to the Frequency of Leaf Selection During Subtree Crossover, In Genetic Programming 1996: Proceedings of the First Annual Conference, Koza, J., Goldberg, D., Fogel, D., and Riolo, R., (eds.), Cambridge MA: MIT Press, pp. 21–29.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bäck, T. and Schwefel, H.-P. (1993). An Overview of Evolutionary Algorithms for Parameter Optimization, Evolutionary Computation, 1 (1), pp. 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cramer, N. (1985) A Representation for the Adaptive Generation of Simple Sequential Programs. In Proceedings of an International Conference on Genetic Algorithms and their Applications, J. Grefensttete (ed.), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Eshelman, L. J. and Shaffer, J. D. (1993) Crossover's Niche, In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, S. Forrest (ed.), San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fogel, D.B. (1995). Evolutionary Computation: Toward a New Philosophy of Machine Intelligence, Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fogel, D. B. and Atmar, J. W. (1990) Comparing Genetic Operators with Gaussian Mutation in Simulated Evolutionary Processes Using Linear Systems, Biological Cybernetics, 63, pp 111–114.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fogel, D. B. and Stayton, L. C. (1994). On the Effectiveness of Crossover in Simulated Evolutionary Optimization, BioSystems, 32, pp. 171–182.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fogel, L.J., Owens, A.J. and Walsh, M.J. (1966). Artificial Intelligence through Simulated Evolution, New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Goldberg, D.E. (1989) Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Holland, J.H. (1992). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jones, T. (1995) Crossover, Macromutation, and Population-based Search, In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, L. Eshelman (ed.), San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp 73–80.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Koza, J. R. (1992). Genetic Programming: On the programming of computers by means of natural selection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Koza, J. R. (1995). A Response to the ML-95 Paper Entitled “Hill Climbing Beats Genetic Search on a Boolean Circuit Synthesis Problem of Koza's,” Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Oakley, E. H. N., (1994). Two scientific applications of genetic programming: stack filters and non-linear equation fitting to chaotic data. In Advances in Genetic Programming, K. Kinnear (ed.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 369–390.

    Google Scholar 

  17. O'Reilly and Oppacher (1996) The Troubling Aspects of a Building Block Hypothesis for Genetic Programming, In Foundations of Genetic Algorithms 3, L. D. Whitley and M. D. Vose (eds.), San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 73–90.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schwefel, H.-P. (1981). Numerical Optimization of Computer Models. Chichester, U.K: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Peter J. Angeline Robert G. Reynolds John R. McDonnell Russ Eberhart

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Angeline, P.J. (1997). Comparing subtree crossover with macromutation. In: Angeline, P.J., Reynolds, R.G., McDonnell, J.R., Eberhart, R. (eds) Evolutionary Programming VI. EP 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1213. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0014804

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0014804

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-62788-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-68518-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics