Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

European Conference on Genetic Programming

EuroGP 2018: Genetic Programming pp 203–219Cite as

A Comparative Study on Crossover in Cartesian Genetic Programming

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 10781))

Abstract

Cartesian Genetic Programming is often used with mutation as the sole genetic operator. Compared to the fundamental knowledge about the effect and use of mutation in CGP, the use of crossover has been less investigated and studied. In this paper, we present a comparative study of previously proposed crossover techniques for Cartesian Genetic Programming. This work also includes the proposal of a new crossover technique which swaps block of the CGP phenotype between two selected parents. The experiments of our study open a new perspective on comparative studies on crossover in CGP and its challenges. Our results show that it is possible for a crossover operator to outperform the standard \((1+\lambda )\) strategy on a limited number of tasks. The question of finding a universal crossover operator in CGP remains open.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://cs.gmu.edu/~eclab/projects/ecj/.

  2. 2.

    http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/irace/.

  3. 3.

    http://www.spotseven.de/category/sequential-parameter-optimization/.

References

  1. Koza, J.: 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, June 1990

    Google Scholar 

  2. Koza, J.R.: Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Miller, J.F., Thomson, P.: Cartesian genetic programming. In: Poli, R., Banzhaf, W., Langdon, W.B., Miller, J., Nordin, P., Fogarty, T.C. (eds.) EuroGP 2000. LNCS, vol. 1802, pp. 121–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-46239-2_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Luke, S., Spector, L.: A Comparison of Crossover and Mutation in Genetic Programming. In: Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference on Genetic Programming 1997, pp. 240–248. Morgan Kaufmann, Stanford University, CA, USA, 13–16 July (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Luke, S., Spector, L.: A revised comparison of crossover and mutation in genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference on Genetic Programming 1998, pp. 208–213. Morgan Kaufmann, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 22–25 July (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  7. White, D.R., Poulding, S.: A rigorous evaluation of crossover and mutation in genetic programming. In: Vanneschi, L., Gustafson, S., Moraglio, A., De Falco, I., Ebner, M. (eds.) EuroGP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5481, pp. 220–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01181-8_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Clegg, J., Walker, J.A., Miller, J.F.: A new crossover technique for cartesian genetic programming. In: GECCO 2007: Proceedings of the 9th annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, vol. 2, pp. 1580–1587. ACM Press, London, 7–11 July (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Slaný, K., Sekanina, L.: Fitness landscape analysis and image filter evolution using functional-level CGP. In: Ebner, M., O’Neill, M., Ekárt, A., Vanneschi, L., Esparcia-Alcázar, A.I. (eds.) EuroGP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4445, pp. 311–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71605-1_29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Walker, J.A., Miller, J.F., Cavill, R.: A multi-chromosome approach to standard and embedded cartesian genetic programming. In: GECCO 2006: Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, vol. 1, pp. 903–910. ACM Press, Seattle, 8–12 July (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cai, X., Smith, S.L., Tyrrell, A.M.: Positional independence and recombination in cartesian genetic programming. In: Collet, P., Tomassini, M., Ebner, M., Gustafson, S., Ekárt, A. (eds.) EuroGP 2006. LNCS, vol. 3905, pp. 351–360. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11729976_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Walker, J.A., Miller, J.F.: Evolution and acquisition of modules in cartesian genetic programming. In: Keijzer, M., O’Reilly, U.-M., Lucas, S., Costa, E., Soule, T. (eds.) EuroGP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3003, pp. 187–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24650-3_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Kaufmann, P., Platzner, M.: Advanced techniques for the creation and propagation of modules in cartesian genetic programming. In: GECCO 2008: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pp. 1219–1226. ACM, Atlanta, 12–16 July (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kalkreuth, R., Rudolph, G., Droschinsky, A.: A new subgraph crossover for cartesian genetic programming. In: McDermott, J., Castelli, M., Sekanina, L., Haasdijk, E., García-Sánchez, P. (eds.) EuroGP 2017. LNCS, vol. 10196, pp. 294–310. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55696-3_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. White, D.R., McDermott, J., Castelli, M., Manzoni, L., Goldman, B.W., Kronberger, G., Jaskowski, W., O’Reilly, U.M., Luke, S.: Better GP benchmarks: community survey results and proposals. Genet. Program Evolvable Mach. 14(1), 3–29 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Carlet, C.: Boolean functions for cryptography and error correcting codes. Boolean Models Methods Math. Comput. Sci. Eng. 2, 257–397 (2010)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Picek, S., Jakobovic, D., Miller, J.F., Batina, L., Cupic, M.: Cryptographic boolean functions: One output, many design criteria. Appl. Soft Comput. 40, 635–653 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sarkar, P., Maitra, S.: Nonlinearity bounds and constructions of resilient boolean functions. In: Bellare, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2000. LNCS, vol. 1880, pp. 515–532. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44598-6_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. McDermott, J., White, D.R., Luke, S., Manzoni, L., Castelli, M., Vanneschi, L., Jaśkowski, W., Krawiec, K., Harper, R., Jong, K.D., O’Reilly, U.M.: Genetic programming needs better benchmarks. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO 2008, pp. 791–798. ACM, Philadelphia (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kaufmann, P., Kalkreuth, R.: Parametrizing cartesian genetic programming: an empirical study. In: Kern-Isberner, G., Fürnkranz, J., Thimm, M. (eds.) KI 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10505, pp. 316–322. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67190-1_26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Czech science foundation project 16-17538S.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Information Technology, Brno University of Technology, Brno, Czech Republic

    Jakub Husa

  2. Department of Computer Science, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany

    Roman Kalkreuth

Authors
  1. Jakub Husa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roman Kalkreuth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jakub Husa .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

    Mauro Castelli

  2. Brno University of Technology, Brno, Czech Republic

    Lukas Sekanina

  3. Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

    Mengjie Zhang

  4. University of Parma, Parma, Italy

    Stefano Cagnoni

  5. University of Cádiz, Cádiz, Spain

    Pablo García-Sánchez

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Husa, J., Kalkreuth, R. (2018). A Comparative Study on Crossover in Cartesian Genetic Programming. In: Castelli, M., Sekanina, L., Zhang, M., Cagnoni, S., García-Sánchez, P. (eds) Genetic Programming. EuroGP 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10781. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77553-1_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77553-1_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-77552-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-77553-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation