August 2011


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
ECJ Evolutionary Computation Toolkit <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 1 Aug 2011 15:45:55 -0400
1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
ECJ Evolutionary Computation Toolkit <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Sean Luke <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (56 lines)
On Aug 1, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Sean Luke wrote:

Hi Rinde.  ECJ's only core grammar-guided system is its GE package at  
present.  Bob Orchard also did a CGP implementation which you can get  
in the contrib folder or off the ECJ website.  Beyond that, you're  
gonna be on your own.  I should mention that GE is far and away the  
most popular such technique.


On Aug 1, 2011, at 5:15 AM, Rinde van Lon wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> I'm using the Grammatical Evolution (GE) package in ECJ (*)  
> to evolve the control structure of an agent in a multi-agent system.  
> This approach seems to be working fairly well. However, my choice  
> for using GE was rather arbitrary and I would like to compare my  
> current implementation using GE to other GGGP (Grammar Guided GP)  
> solutions.
> The reason that I want to conduct this comparison is because I'm in  
> doubt if GE is the best representation for my problem. For example,  
> in [1] GE is outperformed by GP on the Santa Fe Ant Trail problem.  
> Because the Santa Fe Ant Trail problem is in the agent domain, I  
> suspect that GP might be better for my agent problem as well.
> There are two GGGP representations which I would like to use in my  
> implementation, and therefore in ECJ. One is 'plain' grammar guided  
> GP and the other is tree adjoining grammars (TAG). According to [2],  
> one of the benefits of using TAGs is: "The TAG transformation  
> permits local dependencies in the genotype space to map to long- 
> distance dependencies in the intermediate phenotype space in a  
> controlled way, corresponding to the structure of the grammar."
> In short my questions are:
> 	• Does the above reasoning for researching other grammar based GP  
> representations make sense, or am I missing the point (or some  
> recent literature)?
> 	• Are there other GGGP implementations in ECJ besides GE, such as  
> plain GGGP and TAG? If not, why?
> If other GGGP implementations do not exist, I'm thinking of  
> developing them as extensions to ECJ in the future.
> 1. OʼNeill, M. and Ryan, C. Grammatical Evolution. Evolutionary  
> Computation 5, 4 (2001), 349-358.
> 2. McKay, R.I., Hoai, N.X., Whigham, P.A., Shan, Y., and O’Neill,  
> M. Grammar-based Genetic Programming: a survey. Genetic Programming  
> and Evolvable Machines 11, 3-4 (2010), 365-396.
> Best regards,
> Rinde van Lon
> Disclaimer: for  
> more information.