Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

A Comparison of Cartesian Genetic Programming and Linear Genetic Programming

  • Conference paper
Genetic Programming(EuroGP 2008)

Part of the book series:Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 4971))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1191Accesses

  • 25Citations

Abstract

Two prominent genetic programming approaches are the graph-based Cartesian Genetic Programming (CGP) and Linear Genetic Programming (LGP). Recently, a formal algorithm for constructing a directed acyclic graph (DAG) from a classical LGP instruction sequence has been established. Given graph-based LGP and traditional CGP, this paper investigates the similarities and differences between the two implementations, and establishes that the significant difference between them is each algorithm’s means of restricting inter-connectivity of nodes. The work then goes on to compare the performance of two representations each (with varied connectivity) of LGP and CGP to a directed cyclic graph (DCG) GP with no connectivity restrictions on a medical classification and regression benchmark.

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

Access this chapter

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Miller, J.F., Job, D., Vassilev, V.K.: Principles in the Evolutionary Design of Digital Circuits - Part 1. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 1, 8–35 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Miller, J.F., Smith, S.L.: Redundancy and Computational Efficiency in Cartesian Genetic Programming. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 10, 167–174 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Banzhaf, W., Nordin, P., Keller, R., Francone, F.: Genetic Programming - An Introduction: On the Automatic Evolution of Computer Programs and Its Applications. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1998)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Nordin, P.: Evolutionary Program Induction of Binary Mchine Code and its Application. Krehl Verlag, Munster (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brameier, M., Banzhaf, W.: Linear Genetic Programming. Springer, New York (2007)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Newman, D.J., Hettich, S., Blake, C.L., Merz, C.J.: UCI Repository of Machine Learning Databases. University of California, Department of Information and Computer Science,http://www.ics.uci.edu/~mlearn/MLRepository.html

  8. Heer, J.: Prefuse Interactive Information Visualization Toolkit,http://prefuse.org

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Memorial Univeristy of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada

    Garnett Wilson & Wolfgang Banzhaf

  2. Verafin, Inc., St. John’s, NL, Canada

    Garnett Wilson

Authors
  1. Garnett Wilson
  2. Wolfgang Banzhaf

Editor information

Michael O’Neill Leonardo Vanneschi Steven Gustafson Anna Isabel Esparcia Alcázar Ivanoe De Falco Antonio Della Cioppa Ernesto Tarantino

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Wilson, G., Banzhaf, W. (2008). A Comparison of Cartesian Genetic Programming and Linear Genetic Programming. In: O’Neill, M.,et al. Genetic Programming. EuroGP 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4971. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78671-9_16

Download citation

Publish with us


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp