Genetic Programming is a Public Group with 2094 members.
 Genetic Programming

 Public Group,
 2094 members
Primary Navigation
Re: [GP] Genetic Programming vs Algorithms?
Expand Messages
 0 Attachment
On Tuesday, December 2, 2003, at 01:38 PM, Mike Eggleston wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003, Sean Luke wrote:
Sure, I think so.
>
>> Although I personally think that the following definition is better:
>>
>> Genetic programming is a community of researchers interested in
>> applying evolutionary computation to the discovery of solutions in the
>> form of computational devices.
>
> Does the more robust definition also hold true for
> the automatic design of electronic circuts (or ants, etc)?
Note that the definition also probably applies to learning classifier
systems, and to CAs evolved by GA etc.
UnaMay's term "executable structures" might also work instead of
"computational devices".
Sean 0 Attachment
C. Setzkorn wrote:
> I dont get you here Candida. Lets say we evolve a polynomial using GP
Evolving polynomials for symbolic regression is a form of function optimization, not plain parameter optimization (also a form of function optimization). In parameter optimization you evolve the coefficients of the parameters of the function being optimized so that the output of the function is the smallest possible.
> (e.g. for regression) then we clearly have to optimise the parameters of
> the polynomial. The good thing about GP is that it can easily drop terms
> and does not have to evolve the corresponding parameters to zero.
> Hence the search space can be restricted through structural
> optimisation. One can also mutate terminals (parameters) by adding some
> random noise as in (real valued) GAs.
>
> Candida Ferreira wrote:
>
> >John Koza wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>The posting below asserts
> >>"GAs are good at parameter optimization, a task GP cannot handle, ..."
> >>
> >>This is not true. There are hundreds of examples (both in my books and
> >>elsewhere) from dozens of different areas where parameter optimization takes
> >>place inside a GP run. To take just a few examples, there is parameter
> >>optimization that takes places (simultaneously with topology creation) in
> >>problems involving circuits, controllers, antennas, chemical networks,
> >>etc.  to saynothing of parameter optimization that takes places in just
> >>plain old mathematical expressions in symbolic regression runs.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >You are confusing plain parameter optimization with function optimization. The parameter optimization alluded to in my previous email is the one involving minimum or maximum seeking, a task handled particularly successfully by GAs and now, I might add, by GEP.
> >
Candida Ferreira

Candida Ferreira, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, Gepsoft
73 Elmtree Drive
Bristol BS13 8NA, UK
ph: +44 (0) 117 330 9272
http://www.gepsoft.com/gepsoft
http://www.geneexpressionprogramming.com/author.asp
 0 Attachment
Greetings,
It is not difficult to demonstrate that the
statement:
"GAs are good at parameter optimization, a task GP cannot handle, ..."
is false.
If using any general GP system we could emulate GA then
that would be sufficient to prove the falsehood of the claim.
For instance, for binarystring GA:
Choose the function set: FONE, FZERO each with one argument.
The functions return the eval of their argument concatenated
with their own (1 and 0 respt).
Choose the terminal set: TONE, TZERO which return 1 or 0 respt.
Build/create trees with the FULL method, up to depth N (equivalent
to the lenght of the GA strings). The fitness eval function should
interpret each tree in exactly the same way as traditional GA would
process the strings.
With the standard GP genetic operators, this scheme emulates
binary string GA. This scheme can be easily generalized to any
kind of GA representation, ie, nonbinary.
Regards,
David Anisman
 In genetic_programming@yahoogroups.com, "Candida Ferreira"
<candidaf@g...> wrote:>
..."
> John Koza wrote:
>
> > The posting below asserts
> > "GAs are good at parameter optimization, a task GP cannot handle,
> >
books and
> > This is not true. There are hundreds of examples (both in my
> > elsewhere) from dozens of different areas where parameter
optimization takes
> > place inside a GP run. To take just a few examples, there is
parameter
> > optimization that takes places (simultaneously with topology
creation) in
> > problems involving circuits, controllers, antennas, chemical
networks,
> > etc.  to saynothing of parameter optimization that takes places
in just
> > plain old math
ematical expressions in symbolic regression runs.
>
optimization. The parameter optimization alluded to in my previous
> You are confusing plain parameter optimization with function
email is the one involving minimum or maximum seeking, a task handled
particularly successfully by GAs and now, I might add, by GEP.>
> Cheers,
> Candida Ferreira
>
> 
> Candida Ferreira, Ph.D.
> Chief Scientist, Gepsoft
> 73 Elmtree Drive
> Bristol BS13 8NA, UK
> ph: +44 (0) 117 330 9272
> http://www.gepsoft.com/gepsoft
> http://www.geneexpressionprogramming.com/author.asp
>  0 Attachment
>
In regression you optimize the parameters of your model (e.g. the
>
>Evolving polynomials for symbolic regression is a form of function optimization, not plain parameter optimization (also a form of function optimization). In parameter optimization you evolve the coefficients of the parameters of the function being optimized so that the output of the function is the smallest possible.
>
parameters of the polynomial if you have chosen a polynomial as your model)
Good fit of the model can be measured by the MSE or the absolute error.
I don't see a difference ... sorry.
Chris
>
>Candida Ferreira
>
>
>Candida Ferreira, Ph.D.
>Chief Scientist, Gepsoft
>73 Elmtree Drive
>Bristol BS13 8NA, UK
>ph: +44 (0) 117 330 9272
>http://www.gepsoft.com/gepsoft
>http://www.geneexpressionprogramming.com/author.asp
>
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>genetic_programmingunsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> 0 Attachment
I'm sure that with a little ingenuity you will be able to emulate even Microsoft Excel in GP.
Candida Ferreira

Candida Ferreira, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, Gepsoft
73 Elmtree Drive
Bristol BS13 8NA, UK
ph: +44 (0) 117 330 9272
http://www.gepsoft.com/gepsoft
http://www.geneexpressionprogramming.com/author.asp

 Original Message 
From: "voyantix" <voyantix@...>
To: <genetic_programming@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: [GP] Genetic Programming vs Algorithms?
> Greetings,
>
> It is not difficult to demonstrate that the
> statement:
>
> "GAs are good at parameter optimization, a task GP cannot handle, ..."
>
> is false.
>
> If using any general GP system we could emulate GA then
> that would be sufficient to prove the falsehood of the claim.
>
> For instance, for binarystring GA:
>
> Choose the function set: FONE, FZERO each with one argument.
> The functions return the eval of their argument concatenated
> with their own (1 and 0 respt).
>
> Choose the terminal set: TONE, TZERO which return 1 or 0 respt.
>
> Build/create trees with the FULL method, up to depth N (equivalent
> to the lenght of the GA strings). The fitness eval function should
> interpret each tree in exactly the same way as traditional GA would
> process the strings.
>
> With the standard GP genetic operators, this scheme emulates
> binary string GA. This scheme can be easily generalized to any
> kind of GA representation, ie, nonbinary.
>
> Regards,
>
> David Anisman
>
>
>  In genetic_programming@yahoogroups.com, "Candida Ferreira"
> <candidaf@g...> wrote:
> >
> > John Koza wrote:
> >
> > > The posting below asserts
> > > "GAs are good at parameter optimization, a task GP cannot handle,
> ..."
> > >
> > > This is not true. There are hundreds of examples (both in my
> books and
> > > elsewhere) from dozens of different areas where parameter
> optimization takes
> > > place inside a GP run. To take just a few examples, there is
> parameter
> > > optimization that takes places (simultaneously with topology
> creation) in
> > > problems involving circuits, controllers, antennas, chemical
> networks,
> > > etc.  to saynothing of parameter optimization that takes places
> in just
> > > plain old math
>
> ematical expressions in symbolic regression runs.
> >
> > You are confusing plain parameter optimization with function
> optimization. The parameter optimization alluded to in my previous
> email is the one involving minimum or maximum seeking, a task handled
> particularly successfully by GAs and now, I might add, by GEP.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Candida Ferreira
> >
> > 
> > Candida Ferreira, Ph.D.
> > Chief Scientist, Gepsoft
> > 73 Elmtree Drive
> > Bristol BS13 8NA, UK
> > ph: +44 (0) 117 330 9272
> > http://www.gepsoft.com/gepsoft
> > http://www.geneexpressionprogramming.com/author.asp
> > 
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> genetic_programmingunsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> 0 Attachment
Hi David,
Your "proof" has a "mistake" and is invalid.
voyantix wrote:> It is not difficult to demonstrate that the statement:
This is correct. Hovewer, to "emulate" GA in GP in the context of this
>
> "GAs are good at parameter optimization, a task GP cannot handle, ..."
>
> is false.
>
> If using any general GP system we could emulate GA then
> that would be sufficient to prove the falsehood of the claim.
discussion is a bit 'tricky'...
Before we start, we need to agree with one simple assumption (axiom so
to speak), to make the whole discussion worthwhile, and we have to agree
with one terminological aspect of TREES vs STRINGS distinction:
Assumption 1:
GA == representation of the genome is a STRING. This STRING after
'evaluation' represents a point in a (multidimensional) fitness
landscape space.
GP == representation of the genome is a TREE. This TREE after
'evaluation' represents a point in a (multidimensional) programs space.
The particular program's output represents a point in a
(multidimensional) fitness landscape space.
Assumption 2:
STRING != TREE
(in other words, if something is a STRING, it is not a TREE. If
something is a TREE, it is by definiton not a STRING. Therefore, trees
consisting only of one branch, are (according to Assumption 2) strings,
and are not trees).
If we assume 1 without assuming 2 we cannot continue. It would be like
postulating that GP *IS* a special case of GA (which of course is true
in some sense, but this case is least interesting here, and we would
have nothing to talk about).
It seems like the whole point of GP vs. GA disscussion is more or less
like this "are treebased representations 'different' to stringbased
representations, and if so, for what kind of problems one is superior to
the other." If TREEbased representation *IS* superior in some
problems to pure STRINGbased representations (or other way round), from
NFL theorem we *know* it must be inferior in some other problems (or
other way round). If they both are just isomorphic to one another, than
there is no difference to do GA or to do GP.
One can map STRING to a tree, as STRING is actually a special kind of
tree, and one can map TREE to a STRING, e.g. by using reversed polish
notation. But mapping one representation into the other does not
automatically mean the evolutionary dynamics is isomorphic in both
cases. This is the whole point  the dynamics of the evolutionary
search process  not the mappings of representations.
Some claim the evolutionary search is isomorphic, some claim it is not.
Your proof does not answer the question one way or the other unfortunatelly.
> For instance, for binarystring GA:
So far so good, but.... you have actually defined a representation
>
> Choose the function set: FONE, FZERO each with one argument.
> The functions return the eval of their argument concatenated
> with their own (1 and 0 respt).
>
> Choose the terminal set: TONE, TZERO which return 1 or 0 respt.
method which produces STRINGS, therefore, it actually *IS* GA, not GP
(see assumptions above).
> Build/create trees with the FULL method, up to depth N (equivalent
You actually building STRINGS, not TREES (see assumptions above).
> to the lenght of the GA strings). The fitness eval function should
This actually *IS* GA, not GP (see assumptions above).
> interpret each tree in exactly the same way as traditional GA would
> process the strings.
> With the standard GP genetic operators, this scheme emulates
This scheme, based on STRING representation, does not emulate GA in GP,
> binary string GA. This scheme can be easily generalized to any
it actually *is* GA.
> kind of GA representation, ie, nonbinary.

> Regards,
>
> David Anisman
best regards
Mariusz Nowostawski 0 Attachment
Hi,"Candida Ferreira" <candidaf@...> writes:
> I'm sure that with a little ingenuity you will be able to emulate even
> Microsoft Excel in GP.
Good luck trying to define a fitnessfunction that will select offspring
for "Excellike" behavior !!!
What Candida means is that many things can be emulated but are simply not designed for it.
If you solve a problem with GP with a function set containing functions with 2 arguments using the Full method
without mutation, you can also use GA to solve this problem in a very sophisticated way (converting a binary tree into bits),
but GA is just not the best approach to it.
And what Candida means (I think) by the difference between parameter and function optimization is for example, when GP
is used to generate the equation y = 0.75x + 0.6x^2
GP will probably easily find y = ax + bx^2 but will probably not find values for 'a' and 'b' as optimal as GA would, or am I mistaken?
Regards, Korneel.
 Gordon D. Pusch
perl e '$_ = "gdpusch\@...\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
genetic_programmingunsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 0 Attachment
"Candida Ferreira" <candidaf@...> writes:
> I'm sure that with a little ingenuity you will be able to emulate even
Good luck trying to define a fitnessfunction that will select offspring
> Microsoft Excel in GP.
for "Excellike" behavior !!!
 Gordon D. Pusch
perl e '$_ = "gdpusch\@...\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;' 0 Attachment
Although the discussion has drifted a bit from GP vs. algorithms, here is a problem that might illustrate the difference.For an AI class, I made up a twoplayer game. It is played on a network. Each side starts with N pieces (for some N) on the network nodes. The players can move from one node to another by following the edges of the network, (To make it more interesting, the players have separate graphs, although the sets of nodes in the two graphs overlap.)If a player lands on a node that contains pieces owned by the other player, the other player's pieces are removed from the game. A player wins if he removes all of the other player's pieces or if the other player has no move because all his pieces are at deadend node.So this is something like checkers played on a pair of graphs with the following differences. Pieces are taken when you land on their square instead of jumping them.
 It is allowed to have multiple pieces on a square.
 There are no special pieces (like kings).
Since this was an AI class, the point was to illustrate minimax, which it does quite well. It's amazing how difficult it is for a human to look ahead, especially on an unfamiliar board. (The "board" consists of a pair of graphs, one for each player.) But of course, a minimax player can look ahead very easily.Minimax is an algorithm. Although not trivial, it is not a very complex algorithm. How would one attack this problem with GP?As a first approximation, one could fix the board and use GP to evolve a player for that specific game.I imagine it would be a lot more challenging to use GP to evolve a player for a game in which the board itself was part of the input. Yet a graph is a data structure, and one could give the GP system a set of operators that let it move around on its input graphs.Assuming that I'm right and that GP will not be successful at evolving a general player for this game, this suggests that GP is capable of evolving relatively simple functions but not very good at evolving algorithms. For a further discussion of this point see: http://abbott.calstatela.edu/oogp/GuidedGP.doc.For slightly more information about this game and the assignments associated with it, look at http://abbott.calstatela.edu/courses/cs_460. This is assignments 9,10, and 11. A minimax prolog player for the game is available at http://abbott.calstatela.edu/Courses/CS_460/Network%20Game/.To run the game, load prolog and then:? testGame(<Player1>, [e, b], <Player2>, [c, b]).where <Player1> and <Player2> are one of human, random, or minimax.There is a nice (free) prolog at: http://www.swiprolog.org/. Russ Abbott 0 Attachment
Korneel Duyvesteyn <189770cd@...> writes:
>> "Candida Ferreira" <candidaf@...> writes:
Korneel: I think your sarcasm detector needs a tuneup. My remark was not
>>
>>> I'm sure that with a little ingenuity you will be able to emulate even
>>> Microsoft Excel in GP.
>>
>> Good luck trying to define a fitnessfunction that will select offspring
>> for "Excellike" behavior !!!
>
> What Candida means is that many things can be emulated but are simply not
> designed for it.
meant to be taken particularly seriously...
BTW, was anyone else in the group annoyed by that 44k base64 encoded JPEG
advertisement that Yahoo appended to Korneel's followup ??? Yahoo's ads
were annoying enough when they were short bits of HTML, but when they start
shoving binary images down our throats, I wonder if it's once again time
for the group to look for Yet Another Home  before Yahoo decides to allow
JavaScript ads that could potentially contain viruses or "spyware"... >:(
 Gordon D. Pusch
perl e '$_ = "gdpusch\@...\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;' 0 Attachment
At 21:26 02/12/2003 +0000, Candida Ferreira wrote:
>Korneel Duyvesteyn wrote:
GP is a subset of, and more expressive than, GAs, though GAs are likely to
>
> > Does anyone know a problem which GA can solve but GP cannot? (in a
> > reasonable way..)
>
>GAs are good at parameter optimization, a task GP cannot handle, although
>GEP, more related to GP than GAs, can handle this kind of problem very
>well thanks to its multigenic nature (see my book <SNIP>).
be more efficient for some classes of problems. GEP, in contrast, is
overtly more commercial.
Regards
Martin
Disclaimer: <NFL>For any algorithm, any elevated performance over one class
of problems is exactly paid for in performance over another class.</NFL> 0 Attachment
Hi Martin,
Martin Sewell wrote:
[...]> GP is a subset of, and more expressive than, GAs, though GAs are likely to
I think I can understand what you try to communicate, but the sentence
> be more efficient for some classes of problems.
above is unfortunatelly not consistent.
First, if "GP is a subset of GAs", then GP by definition cannot be "more
expressive than GAs"  because GAs, by definition would be a superset
containing GP+other stuff, therefore GA could express all GP can express
plus more, which GP cannot express.
Second, if "GP is a subset of GAs" then it is not only "likely", but it
is actually a simple fact (by definition) that GAs are "more efficient
for some classes of problems"  because everything GP can do GAs can do
as well, but not all GAs can do can be repeated by GP with the same
efficiency.
As I said before, any talk on the subject "GP vs. GA" must be preceded
by the agreement on some basic understanding of the words being used in
the discourse  just by shuffling the words and using them in different
context with different semantics will lead nowhere.
>

> Regards
> Martin
best regards
Mariusz 0 Attachment
At 15:36 04/12/2003 +1300, Mariusz Nowostawski wrote:>Hi Martin,
The above sentence is false. :)
>
>Martin Sewell wrote:
>[...]
> > GP is a subset of, and more expressive than, GAs, though GAs are likely to
> > be more efficient for some classes of problems.
>
>I think I can understand what you try to communicate, but the sentence
>above is unfortunatelly not consistent.
>First, if "GP is a subset of GAs", then GP by definition cannot be "more
"More expressive", not "expresses more".
>expressive than GAs"  because GAs, by definition would be a superset
>containing GP+other stuff, therefore GA could express all GP can express
>plus more, which GP cannot express.
>Second, if "GP is a subset of GAs" then it is not only "likely", but it
The qualifier "likely" is used because there exists a GA which would have
>is actually a simple fact (by definition) that GAs are "more efficient
>for some classes of problems"  because everything GP can do GAs can do
>as well, but not all GAs can do can be repeated by GP with the same
>efficiency.
an equivalent GP, for which the statement would be false. I also included
a disclaimer: "<NFL>For any algorithm, any elevated performance over one
class of problems is exactly paid for in performance over another class.</NFL>"
>As I said before, any talk on the subject "GP vs. GA" must be preceded
That's why I included "GP is a subset of [...] GAs".
>by the agreement on some basic understanding of the words being used in
>the discourse  just by shuffling the words and using them in different
>context with different semantics will lead nowhere.
Regards
Martin 0 Attachment
> And what Candida means (I think) by the difference between parameter and
Would be interesting to do a comparison. Is anyone aware of one?
> function optimization is for example, when GP
> is used to generate the equation y = 0.75x + 0.6x^2
> GP will probably easily find y = ax + bx^2 but will probably not find
> values for 'a' and 'b' as optimal as GA would, or am I mistaken?
On the other hand, one could always add some noise to the terminal
parameters similar to GAs with real values. Perhaps one could even
represent terminals as bit strings and perform GA crossover between the
terminals that two trees, which undergo GP crossover, have in common.
I guess one could also generate suitable models using GP and then
optimise its parameters using GA.
I suppose someone must have done something like this. I would be
grateful for any references. Many thanks in advance.
Regards,
Christian 0 Attachment
So...
This seems to be a hot topic, with little agreement indeed. I can't help
but think of Langdon and Polis book "Foundation of Genetic Programming"
where they state, complete with a lot of mathematic theories about the
searchspace, that GA is actually a subset of a certain kind of GP (with
onepoint crossover etc). In this version of GP, the later stages of a
GPrun is actually behaving like a GAsearch, according to the authors and
their mathematical proofs.
I think the theories of this book would have quite a lot to say about what
kind of efficiency we can expect GP to have on the problem mentioned here.
On the other hand, this is not the commonly used version of GP (if there is
such a version), and on a third hand (huh), I'm not good enough at
mathemathics to really assess the general validity of the mathematical
proofs in this book. Nor have I had enough time.. Maybe they are all wrong? :)
In any case, it might be a tip to some of you interested in the relation
between GA and GP, since this book explores it quite a lot.
And, correct me if I'm wrong (since I'm not too up to date about current
GAimplementations), but doesn't GA produce a fixed length bit string,
where GP produces a variable length program, that may in turn produce a
fixed length bit string (if that's what you want it to do)? Even though
GA/GP can both be used for min/maxproblemsolving, they aren't really "the
same" (depending on how you define "same" of course) since you would have
to execute a program to get the results out of a GPindividual?
Have a nice day!
/Mats Andrén
At 09:11 20031204 +0000, you wrote:> > And what Candida means (I think) by the difference between parameter and
> > function optimization is for example, when GP
> > is used to generate the equation y = 0.75x + 0.6x^2
> > GP will probably easily find y = ax + bx^2 but will probably not find
> > values for 'a' and 'b' as optimal as GA would, or am I mistaken?
>
>Would be interesting to do a comparison. Is anyone aware of one?
>
>On the other hand, one could always add some noise to the terminal
>parameters similar to GAs with real values. Perhaps one could even
>represent terminals as bit strings and perform GA crossover between the
>terminals that two trees, which undergo GP crossover, have in common.
>
>I guess one could also generate suitable models using GP and then
>optimise its parameters using GA.
>
>I suppose someone must have done something like this. I would be
>grateful for any references. Many thanks in advance.
>
>Regards,
>Christian
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>genetic_programmingunsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 0 Attachment
Martin Sewell wrote:
> > > Does anyone know a problem which GA can solve but GP cannot? (in a
I wonder what you mean by this (the commercial part, that is)...
> > > reasonable way..)
> >
> >GAs are good at parameter optimization, a task GP cannot handle, although
> >GEP, more related to GP than GAs, can handle this kind of problem very
> >well thanks to its multigenic nature (see my book <SNIP>).
>
> GP is a subset of, and more expressive than, GAs, though GAs are likely to
> be more efficient for some classes of problems. GEP, in contrast, is
> overtly more commercial.
Candida Ferreira

Candida Ferreira, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, Gepsoft
73 Elmtree Drive
Bristol BS13 8NA, UK
ph: +44 (0) 117 330 9272
http://www.gepsoft.com/gepsoft
http://www.geneexpressionprogramming.com/author.asp

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.