1 / 41

CGP Visits the Santa Fe Trail – Effects of Heuristics on GP

CGP Visits the Santa Fe Trail – Effects of Heuristics on GP. Cezary Z. Janikow Christopher J Mann UMSL. Roadmap. GP GP Search Space Local heuristics CGP Heuristics in SantaFe Trail Function/Terminal set Structural Combination Generality Probabilistic heuristics Summary.

neylan
Télécharger la présentation

CGP Visits the Santa Fe Trail – Effects of Heuristics on GP

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. CGP Visits the Santa Fe Trail – Effects of Heuristics on GP Cezary Z. Janikow Christopher J MannUMSL

  2. Roadmap • GP • GP Search Space • Local heuristics • CGP • Heuristics in SantaFe Trail • Function/Terminal set • Structural • Combination • Generality • Probabilistic heuristics • Summary

  3. GP Search Space • Best mappings • One-to-one, onto • Real life • Large function/terminal set • Redundancy • Many-to-one • Can domain-specific knowledge improve GP performance? • Can we learn some domain-specific knowledge from GP?

  4. GP Search Space • 2-D space • Tree structures • constrained by size limits and function arity • Tree instances of specific structures • constrained by domain sizes

  5. Pruning/Constraining GP Search Space • Tree structures • Hard to accomplish directly w/o instantiations • Indirect by adjusting possible instantiations • Tree instances • Strong constraints • prohibit some instantiations (labelings) • Structure-preserving cross, STGP, CGP, CFG-GP • Weak probabilistic constraints • favor some instantiations over others • CGP, Probabilistic Tree Grammars

  6. GP Design • GP only explores a well defined subspace of the potential search space • Later generations search smaller subspaces • Initial choice of the root node has significant impact on search and final solution • Called the GP Design • Daida, Langdon, Hall and Soule • Heuristics can alter the design and redirect later generations toward specific subspaces • Conversely, observing the designs tells us about problem-specific heuristics - ACGP

  7. CGP Principles What heuristics/constraints can be processed

  8. CGP Principles • Strong input constraints • Prune the search space in such a way that valid parent(s) guarantee valid offspring • Start with valid initialization • Weak probabilistic constraints • Adjust probabilities of specific mutations/crossovers • Only local heusristics • Both with minimal linear overhead

  9. GP with Strong and Weak Constraints Pruned non-uniform distribution Mutation/Crossover Pi Pi+1 Reproduction Probabilistic Grammars, CGP, EDA

  10. CGP Means of Processing • Strong constraints • Explicit structures and by data typing • Overloaded functions on types • Weak constraints

  11. CGP Means of Processing • Explicit labeling constraints • First order only • Parent-child • Can be with probability • Data typing constraints • Propagated through overloaded functions • This links first-order information

  12. / + 2 x sin a CGP Mutation / + 2 x * c 3

  13. + 2 + y 4 / + 2 / x sin + + + 2 2 a x sin y 4 a GP Crossover

  14. SantaFe Experiments Problem Function set Heuristics exploration Generality of the heuristics Comparing vs. ACGP’s probabilistic heuristics (on performance)

  15. SantaFe Problem 32x32 grid Food trail, 144 cells long, with 21 turns and 89 pieces of food Start northwest corner of the grid facing east Fitness is the number of food pieces consumed in up to 400 moves

  16. SantaFe Functions/Terminals Terminals turn left, right, move action Functions if-food-ahead test the position directly ahead for food, and if true perform the first action, otherwise perform the second action progn2, progn3 take two and three arguments, respectively, and execute them sequentially.

  17. Experimental Methodology Analyze and propose heuristics Reducing function set Constraining root and local structures Combing the above Assess heuristics using 10 independent runs Learning curves – average of best Efficiency – average tree size in populations

  18. Reducing Function Set: Basics, Quality

  19. Reducing Function Set: Basics, Efficiency

  20. Reducing Function Set: Combined, Quality

  21. Reducing Function Set: Combined, Efficiency

  22. Constraining Root and Local Structure: Basics, Quality

  23. Constraining Root and Local Structure: Basics,Efficiency

  24. Constraining Root and Local Structure: Combined, Quality

  25. Constraining Root and Local Structure: Combined, Efficiency

  26. Combined Function Set and Structural Heuristics: Quality

  27. Combined Function Set and Structural Heuristics: Efficiency

  28. More Combined Heuristics: Quality

  29. More Combined Heuristics: Quality

  30. Best Heuristics by Inspection Analyze best trees constrain progn2 and progn3 so that neither can call neither (P!P2!P3) constrain root to always test for food (ifroot) constrain if-food-ahead to always move first if there is food ahead (if0m), while disallowing testing for food again if there is no food ahead (if1!if). Best heuristics even though individual components were not best

  31. Best Heuristics by Inspection: Quality (vs. components)

  32. Best Heuristics by Inspection: Efficiency (vs. components)

  33. Best Heuristics Summary: Quality

  34. Best Heuristics Summary: Efficiency

  35. Best Shortest Solution (if-food-ahead move (progn3 right (if-food-ahead move (progn3 left left (if-food-ahead move right))) move))

  36. Testing Slightly Different Trails: Same Basic Primitives

  37. Testing Different Trails: Similar Basic Primitives

  38. Learning Probabilistic Heuristics with ACGP

  39. Comparing Probabilistic Heuristics vs. Strong

  40. Summary 1 • Heuristics improve GP search • Learning curve improves • Learning complexity improves • Timing improves because if low overhead • Complex heuristics may be better even if their components are not very good • Good components do not guarantee better combination

  41. Summary 2 • Probabilistic heuristics can easily outperform strong heuristics • But may be less comprehensible if information sought • Heuristics are specific to a problem • Help on similar problems • More specific are less less generalizing • Conversely, learning heuristics may tell us about domain knowledge

More Related