Skip to main content
Log in

Evolutive Introns: A Non-Costly Method of Using Introns in GP

  • Published:
Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We proposed a new strategy to explicitly define introns that increases the probability of selecting good crossover points as evolution goes on. Our approach differs from existing methods in the procedure followed to adapt the probabilities of groups of code being protected. We also provide some experimental results in symbolic regression and classification that reinforced our belief in the usefulness of this procedure. Collateral effects of Evolutive Introns (EIs) are also studied to determine possible modifications in the behavior of a classical Genetic Programming (GP) system.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. J. R. Koza, Genetic Programming: On the Programming ofComputers by Means ofNatural Selection, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  2. L. M. Howard, “A genetic algorithm and genetic programming hybrid,” IEEE Expert/Intell. Syst. Appl. vol. 10(3), June 1995.

  3. P. Nordin, F. Francone, and W. Banzhaf, “Explicitly defined introns and destructive crossover in genetic programming,” in Advances in Genetic Programming, K. E. Kinnear, Jr, and P. J. Angeline (eds.), MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1995, vol. 2, pp. 111–134.

    Google Scholar 

  4. D. Andre and A. Teller, “A study in program response and the negative effects of introns in genetic programming,” in Genetic Programming 1996: Proc. First Ann. Conf. J. R. Koza, D. E. Goldberg, D. B. Fogel, and R. L. Riolo (eds.) MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1996, pp. 12–20.

    Google Scholar 

  5. P. Nordin, W. Banzhaf, and F. Francone, “Introns in nature and in simulated structure evolution. Biocomputing and emergent computation, in Proc. BCEC97 Skovde, September 1–2, 1997, Sweden, D. Lundh, B. Olsson, and A. Narayanan (eds.) World Scientific: Singapore, 1997, pp. 22–35.

    Google Scholar 

  6. L. Altenberg, “The evolution ofevolvability in genetic programming,” in Advances in Genetic Programming, K. E. Kinnear, Jr., (ed.), MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1994, pp. 47–74.

    Google Scholar 

  7. R. K. Lindsay, and A. S. Wu, “Testing the robustness ofthe genetic algorithm on the floating building block representation,” in Proc. 13th Nat. Conf. Artif. Intell., Portland, OR, August 1996.

  8. P. Nordin and W. Banzhaf, “Complexity compression and evolution,” in Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Genet. Algorithms, Pittsburgh 1995 (ICGA-95), L. Eshelman (ed.), Morgan Kaufmann: San Francisco, 1995, pp. 310–317.

    Google Scholar 

  9. A. S. Wu and R. K. Lindsay, “Empirical studies ofthe genetic algorithm with non-coding segments,” Evol. Comput., vol. 3(2), Summer 1995.

  10. A. S. Wu, R. K. Lindsay, M. D. Smith, “Studies on the effect of non-coding segments on the Genetic Algorithm,” in Proc. 6th IEEE Int. Conf. Tools with Artif. Intell., New Orleans, LA, November 1994.

  11. A. S. Wu and R. K. Lindsay, “A survey ofintron research in genetics,” in Proc. 4th Conf. Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, Berlin, Germany, September 1996.

  12. A. S. Wu and R. K. Lindsay, “A comparison ofthe fixed and floating building block representation in the genetic algorithm,” Evol. Comput. vol. 4(2), 1996.

  13. T. Blickle, “Evolving compact solutions in genetic programming: A Case Study,” in Parallel Problem Solving From Nature IV, Proc. Int. Conf. on Evol. Comput., Berlin, Germany, H. M. Voigt, W. Ebeling, I. Rechenberg, and H. P. Schwefel (eds.), LNCS, vol. 1141, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, September 22–26 1996, pp. 564–573.

    Google Scholar 

  14. H. Juille and J. B. Pollack, “Co-evolving intertwined spirals,” in Evol. Program. V: Proc. Fifth Ann. Conf. Evol. Program., L. J. Fogel, P. J. Angeline, and T. Baeck (eds.), MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1996, pp. 461–467.

    Google Scholar 

  15. K. Harries and P. Smith, “Exploring alternative operators and search strategies in genetic programming,” in Genetic Programming 1997: Proc. Second Ann. Conf., Stanford University, CA, USA, J. R. Koza, K. Deb, M. Dorigo, D. B. Fogel, M. Garzon, H. Iba, and R. L. Riolo (eds.), Morgan Kaufmann: Los Altos, CA, July 13–16 1997, pp. 147–155.

    Google Scholar 

  16. M. Wineberg and F. Oppacher, “The benefits ofcomputing with introns,” Genetic Programming 1996: Proc. First Ann. Conf., Stanford University, CA, USA, J. R. Koza, D. E. Goldberg, D. B. Fogel, and R. L. Riolo (eds.), MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, July 28–31 1996, pp. 410–415.

    Google Scholar 

  17. P. J. Angeline, Genetic Programming and Emergent Intelligence. Advances in Genetic Programming. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  18. P. J. Angeline, “Two self-adaptive crossover operators for genetic programming,” in Advances in Genetic Programming 2, P. J. Angeline and K. E. Kinnear, Jr., (eds.), MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, chapter 5, pp 89–110.

  19. P. J. Angeline, “An investigation into the sensitivity ofgenetic programming to the frequency ofleaf selection during subtree crossover,” Genetic Programming 1996: Proc. First Ann. Conf., J. R. Koza, D. Goldberg, D. Fogel, and R. Riolo (eds.), MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, pp. 21–29.

  20. P. M. Murphy and D. W. Aha, UCI Repository ofMachine Learning Databases, Maintained at the Department ofInf ormation and Computer Science, The University ofCalif ornia at Irvine, 1992.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carbajal, S.G., Martinez, F.G. Evolutive Introns: A Non-Costly Method of Using Introns in GP. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 2, 111–122 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011548229751

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011548229751

Navigation