LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ECJ-INTEREST-L Archives


ECJ-INTEREST-L Archives

ECJ-INTEREST-L Archives


ECJ-INTEREST-L@LISTSERV.GMU.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ECJ-INTEREST-L Home

ECJ-INTEREST-L Home

ECJ-INTEREST-L  May 2007

ECJ-INTEREST-L May 2007

Subject:

Re: Performance of ADFs on even-parity example problems

From:

Matthew Walker <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

ECJ Evolutionary Computation Toolkit <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 8 May 2007 18:12:25 +1200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (97 lines)

Sean Luke wrote:
> On May 5, 2007, at 12:36 AM, Matthew Walker wrote:
>
>> I'm *very* new to ECJ, so my apologies if I have done something 
>> stupid.  I would, however, very much appreciate someone telling me 
>> where I've gone wrong!
>>
>> I have run the parity examples provided with ECJ and I'm confused 
>> with the results.  I have tried to reproduce some of the experiments 
>> in Koza's second book.  My expectation was that I could use the 
>> parity examples provided with ECJ to get similar results to chapter 6 
>> of GPII which generally concludes that the use of ADFs is a good 
>> thing for this domain.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> So, to summarize, Standard GP scored 32.4% while GP with ADFs scored 
>> 0.6%.  From Koza's second book on GP (page 181), this was not what I 
>> expected to get.  I expected GP with ADFs to outperform standard GP 
>> on this problem domain.  I sat around scratching my head trying to 
>> work out what I had done wrong, however nothing but hair came out ;o)
>
>
> Hi Matt.  This is the first time that this bug [if it is one] has been 
> reported and no, you're not necessarily doing something stupid.  I'm 
> not sure what the problem is, but there are several possibilities:
>
>     - A bug in the ADF code (possible)
>     - A bug in the parity problem example (less likely but possible)
>     - Errors in Koza's text
>
> There have been some significant errors in Koza's text on certain 
> problem domains, so it's a definite possibility.  What we need is a 
> third implementation to verify if it's ECJ doing this or not.  lil-gp 
> anyone?  Or maybe open beagle?
>
Ahh.  Well... actually... I've come from OpenBeagle.  My initial efforts 
were with that system and I've tried quite hard to get it to produce 
performance that's similar to published results. (See 
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=46358035.1090806%40massey.ac.nz&forum_name=beagle-developers). 


Because I was fairly unsuccessful, I came up with the same list you did: 
either it was a subtle bug in Beagle, or an issue with Koza's text.  I 
did not consider the parity code to be a possibility---but perhaps 
should have.  So my step was to try a "third implementation"; and ECJ 
was my choice.  I was surprised to get results with ECJ that did not 
follow Koza's.

Given that I had now failed on two software systems, I went to see if I 
could find any replications of Koza's work.  Firstly, there is David 
Jackson's paper in EuroGP last month.  On the even-4-parity problem with 
a population of 500, he achieved 14% success without ADFs and 43% 
success with ADFs (100 runs each).  This result is statistically 
significant.  In 1998 Naemura, Hasiyama and Okuma also worked with 
even-4-parity but with a population size of 200.  They found no 
solutions after 300 generations without ADFs but had about 55% success 
with ADFs (30 runs each).  I don't yet have any other examples, but even 
from those two I think it's fair to say Koza's results have been 
verified.  Jackson rolled his own system (which is not publicly 
available) but I don't know what software the Japanese group used.

Since then I've looked at the lawnmower problem that's included with 
ECJ.  For this problem I obtained results that were in the same vein as 
Koza's.  500 from 500 runs found a solution by generation 4 with ADFs, 
whereas without ADFs it took 23 generations to obtain the same level of 
success (over 241 runs).  In fact, the first solution without ADFs 
didn't turn up till generation 12, so these results are absolutely 
significant.  I thought the problem defaulted to a 64-square lawn (as 
per http://cs.gmu.edu/~eclab/projects/ecj/docs/), but my results are 
more coherent with Koza's results on a 32-square lawn.  However the 
point is, ECJ's ADF code seemed to work fine on this problem domain.

I've obtained the lisp code that Koza published in his second book.  So 
far I've executed a few runs of even-5-parity with a population size of 
16,000 and the results seem in line with the graphs in GPII.  I plan to 
let the system go overnight to obtain a few more runs.

Given all this, I'm left with the feeling that there could be some minor 
parameter that is having a major effect on the results.  Do you have any 
other possible explanations?  Any recommendations on what I might do next?

> As to memory: 16,000 is a big number for ECJ, which is fairly memory 
> hungry.  What -Xmx and -Xms settings did you set on your VM, however?
>
I don't know.  I ran the command "java ec.Evolve -file 
../../../../ec/app/parity/parity.params -p eval.problem.even=true &> 
console.txt".  From "top" it looks like the machine has 2GB of memory.  
I've just been told that Java defaults to using only 25% of the 
machine's RAM for heap, so that was probably my problem.


Thank you again for your help.

Regards,

Matthew

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

June 2019
April 2019
March 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
July 2018
May 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.GMU.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager