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  February 2011

ECJ-INTEREST-L February 2011

Subject:

Re: Grammatical Evolution Santa Fe Experiment Problem

From:

Sean Luke <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:18:17 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (110 lines)

I'm looking at the paper described below and I'm totally convinced  
that it's not correct.  If "Cumulative Frequency" is to be taken as  
"number of 100% correct solutions", then the values for Genetic  
Programming in the Santa Fe Trail (Figure 5A) are absurdly high.  If  
you do GP with 1000 individuals for about 50 runs, you'll get a  
correct solution roughly once in 20 times.  As you can see, the  
paper's values are *way* different from that.  Likewise, Symbolic  
Regression does not have nearly the success rates given.  Did some  
double-checking with lil-gp to make sure.

I am inclined to presume that what the paper meant, erroneously, was  
some measure of fitness, maybe mean adjusted fitness (1/(1+f)).  Also  
I note that Ant was run for 600 steps rather than 400, which should  
perform somewhat better.  There's some history there: Koza ran for 600  
timesteps but reported it as 400 incorrectly and most of the GP  
literature is based on 400, which is why ECJ's default is 400 (as is  
lil-gp's default).

Now just because this paper seems to have interpretation issues  
doesn't mean that ECJ doesn't have bugs in the brand-new GE facility  
or poor initial choices for parameter settings.  Our goal was to get  
GE working properly and consistently, not to tune it.  So some  
examination would be welcome!

Sean

On Feb 14, 2011, at 1:32 PM, K S wrote:

> Hi Matthew,
> I'm currently at work right now and I don't have time to completely  
> look over your e-mail.  However, the Santa Fe ant demo is included  
> in ECJ under ec.app.ant.  Please checkout that and koza.params under  
> ec.gp.koza.
>
> > Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 07:08:01 -0500
> > From: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Grammatical Evolution Santa Fe Experiment Problem
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > Hello,
> > It is great that ecj now has a grammatical evolution  
> implementation. But I
> > am having trouble replicating the results of a basic GE  
> experiment. I am
> > wondering if anyone else has had this problem, can see any  
> mistakes in what
> > I have done, or know of a reason for this.
> > I refer to the results of this paper, for the santa fe ant trail:
> > O'Neill M., Ryan C. Grammatical Evolution. IEEE Transactions on  
> Evolutionary
> > Computation, Vol. 5 No.4, August 2001.
> >
> > In this paper, over 100 runs, GE finds the correct code in  
> approximately 90
> > of the runs. However, my results are consistently around the 25  
> mark.
> >
> > I would normally put any discrepancies down to small differences in
> > implementation between O'Neill's code and ecj, but the results are  
> so
> > dramatically different that it is probably not due to this.
> >
> > My parameters are copied below. You will see I have tried to match  
> the
> > grammar that they use, and use the same genetic operators in the  
> pipeline.
> >
> > Thanks for your help.
> >
> > #Grammar file myant.grammar
> > <start> ::= <code>
> > <code> ::= <line> | (progn2 <code> <line>)
> > <line> ::= (if-food-ahead <line> <line>) | <op>
> > <op> ::= (left) | (right) | (move)
> >
> > #Initialisation
> > pop.subpop.0.size = 500
> > breed.elite.0 = 50
> > pop.subpop.0.species.genome-size = uniform
> > pop.subpop.0.species.min-initial-size = 5
> > pop.subpop.0.species.max-initial-size = 20
> >
> > #GA pipelines
> > pop.subpop.0.species.pipe = ec.vector.breed.GeneDuplicationPipeline
> > pop.subpop.0.species.pipe.likelihood = 0.01
> > pop.subpop.0.species.pipe.source.0 =  
> ec.vector.breed.VectorMutationPipeline
> > pop.subpop.0.species.pipe.source.0.likelihood = 1
> > pop.subpop.0.species.mutation-prob = 0.01
> > pop.subpop.0.species.pipe.source.0.source.0 =
> > ec.vector.breed.ListCrossoverPipeline
> > pop.subpop.0.species.pipe.source.0.source.0.prob = 1
> > pop.subpop.0.species.pipe.source.0.source.0.likelihood = 0.9
> > pop.subpop.0.species.pipe.source.0.source.0.source.0 =
> > ec.select.TournamentSelection
> > pop.subpop.0.species.pipe.source.0.source.0.source.1 = same
> > pop.subpop.0.species.pipe.source.0.source.0.toss = false
> >
> > #function set
> > gp.fs.0.size = 5
> > gp.fs.0.func.0 = ec.app.ant.func.Left
> > gp.fs.0.func.0.nc = nc0
> > gp.fs.0.func.1 = ec.app.ant.func.Right
> > gp.fs.0.func.1.nc = nc0
> > gp.fs.0.func.2 = ec.app.ant.func.Move
> > gp.fs.0.func.2.nc = nc0
> > gp.fs.0.func.3 = ec.app.ant.func.IfFoodAhead
> > gp.fs.0.func.3.nc = nc2
> > gp.fs.0.func.4 = ec.app.ant.func.Progn2
> > gp.fs.0.func.4.nc = ncboth

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

September 2019
August 2019
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