1

INTRODUCTION TO GENETIC
PROGRAMMING

TUTORIAL

GECCO-2004—SEATTLE
SUNDAY JUNE 27, 2004

John R. Koza
Consulting Professor (Medical Informatics)
Department of Medicine
School of Medicine

Consulting Professor
Department of Electrical Engineering
School of Engineering

Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305
E-MAIL: koza@stanford.edu
http://www.smi.stanford.edu/people/koza/
http://www.genetic-programming.org
http://www.genetic-programming.com
 2

THE CHALLENGE

"How can computers learn to solve problems without

being explicitly programmed? In other words, how
can computers be made to do what is needed to be
done, without being told exactly how to do it?"
⎯ Attributed to Arthur Samuel (1959)

CRITERION FOR SUCCESS

"The aim [is] ... to get machines to exhibit behavior,

which if done by humans, would be assumed to
involve the use of intelligence."
⎯ Arthur Samuel (1983)
 3

MAIN POINTS

• Genetic programming now routinely delivers

high-return human-competitive machine
intelligence.
• Genetic programming is an automated
invention machine.
• Genetic programming can automatically create
a general solution to a problem in the form of a
parameterized topology.
 4

SOME (OF THE MANY)

REPRESENTATIONS USED TO TRY TO
ACHIEVE MACHINE INTELLIGENCE IN
THE FIELDS OF ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE (AI) AND MACHINE
LEARNING (ML)

• Decision trees
• If-then production rules (e.g., expert systems)
• Horn clauses
• Neural nets (matrices of numerical weights)
• Bayesian networks
• Frames
• Propositional logic
• Binary decision diagrams
• Formal grammars
• Vectors of numerical coefficients for polynomials (adaptive
systems)
• Tables of values (reinforcement learning)
• Conceptual clusters
• Concept sets
• Parallel if-then rules (e.g., genetic classifier systems)
 5

A COMPUTER PROGRAM

Input Program Output

Potential Potential Potential Potential

Subroutines Loops Recursions Internal
Storage

REPRESENTATION
• "Our view is that computer programs are the best
representation of computer programs."
 6

FLOWCHART FOR GENETIC

PROGRAMMING (GP)
End
No Yes
Run := 0 Gen := 0 Create Initial Random Run = N? Run := Run + 1
Population for Run

Termination Criterion Yes Designate

Satisfied for Run? Result for Run
i := 0 No
Apply Fitness Measure to Individual in the Population

No
i = M? i := i + 1
i := 0 Yes

Yes
Gen := Gen + 1 i = M? i := i + 1
No
Select Genetic Operation
Pr Select One Individual Copy into New
Based on Fitness Perform Reproduction
Population
Pc Select Two Individuals Perform Insert Offspring
into New i := i + 1
Based on Fitness Crossover
Population
Pm Select One Individual Insert Mutant into
Perform Mutation
Based on Fitness New Population
Select an Architecture Altering Operation
Based on its Specified Probability

Perform the Insert Offspring into

Select One Individual Architecture Altering
Based on Fitness New Population
Operation
 7

COMPUTER PROGRAM
=PARSE TREE=PROGRAM TREE
=PROGRAM IN LISP=DATA=LIST
(+ 1 2 (IF (> TIME 10) 3 4))
• Terminal set T = {1, 2, 10, 3, 4, TIME}
• Function set F = {+, IF, >}

1 2 IF

> 3 4

TIME 10
 8

EXAMPLE OF RANDOM CREATION OF

A PROGRAM TREE

• Terminal set T = {A, B, C}

• Function set F = {+, –, *, %, IFLTE}

BEGIN WITH TWO-ARGUMENT +

+

CONTINUE WITH TWO-ARGUMENT *

1 +

2 *

FINISH WITH TERMINALS A, B, AND C

+

* C

A B

• The result is a syntactically valid executable program

(provided the set of functions is closed)
 9

MUTATION OPERATION

• Select parent probabilistically based on fitness

• Pick point from 1 to NUMBER-OF-POINTS
• Delete subtree at the picked point
• Grow new subtree at the mutation point in same way as
generated trees for initial random population (generation 0)
• The result is a syntactically valid executable program

ONE PARENTAL PROGRAM

1 OR

2 AND 3 NOR

D2 D1 D0 D1

4 5 6 7

OFFSPRING PRODUCED BY MUTATION

OR

NOR
NOR

D0 D1
NOT NOT

D0 D1
 10

CROSSOVER (SEXUAL
RECOMBINATION) OPERATION FOR
COMPUTER PROGRAMS
• Select two parents probabilistically based on fitness
• Randomly pick a number from 1 to NUMBER-OF-POINTS
– independently for each of the two parental programs
• Identify the two subtrees rooted at the two picked points

1 1
+ *
2 5 2 5
* – * +
3 4 6 7 3 4 6 7
0.234 Z X 0.789 Z Y Y *
8 9
0.314 Z

0.234Z + X – 0.789 ZY(Y + 0.314Z)

Parent 1:
(+ (* 0.234 Z) (- X 0.789))
Parent 2:
(* (* Z Y) (+ Y (* 0.314 Z)))
 11

THE CROSSOVER OPERATION

(TWO OFFSPRING VERSION)

+ *

+ – * *

Y * X 0.789 Z Y 0.234 Z

0.314 Z
2
Y + 0.314Z + X – 0.789 0.234Z Y

Offspring 1:
(+ (+ Y (* 0.314 Z))
(- X 0.789))
Offspring 2:
(* (* Z Y) (* 0.234 Z))

• The result is a syntactically valid executable program

 12

FIVE MAJOR PREPARATORY STEPS

FOR GP

• Determining the set of terminals

• Determining the set of functions
• Determining the fitness measure
• Determining the parameters for the run
• population size
• number of generations
• minor parameters
• Determining the method for designating a
result and the criterion for terminating a run

Terminal Set
Function Set
Fitness Measure A Computer
Parameters
GP Program
Termination
Criterion
 13

TABLEAU FOR SYMBOLIC

REGRESSION OF QUADRATIC
POLYNOMIAL X2 + X + 1
Objective: Find a computer program with one
input (independent variable x),
whose output equals the value of the
quadratic polynomial x2 + x + 1 in
range from -1 to +1.
1 Terminal set: T = {X}
2 Function set: F = {+, -, *, %}
NOTE: The protected division
function % returns a value of 1 when
division by 0 is attempted (including
0 divided by 0)
3 Fitness: The sum of the absolute value of the
differences (errors), computed (in
some way) over values of the
independent variable x from –1.0 to
+1.0, between the program’s output
and the target quadratic polynomial
x2 + x + 1.
4 Parameters: Population size M = 4.
5 Termination: An individual emerges whose sum
of absolute errors is less than 0.1
 14

SYMBOLIC REGRESSION OF
QUADRATIC POLYNOMIAL X2 + X + 1

INITIAL POPULATION OF FOUR

RANDOMLY CREATED INDIVIDUALS
OF GENERATION 0
(a) (b) (c) (d)
- + + *

+ 0 1 * 2 0 x -

x 1 x x -1 -2

X+1 X2 + 1 2 X

FITNESS

0.67 1.00 1.70 2.67

 15

SYMBOLIC REGRESSION OF
QUADRATIC POLYNOMIAL X2 + X + 1
(a) (b) (c) (d)
- + + *

+ 0 1 * 2 0 x -

x 1 x x -1 -2

GENERATION 1
(a) (b) (c) (d)
- + - +

+ 0 % 0 x 0 1 *

x 1 x x + x

x 1
2
x+1 1 X x +x+1

Copy of (a) Mutant of (c) First Second

offspring of offspring of
—picking “2” crossover of crossover of
as mutation (a) and (b) (a) and (b)
point
—picking “+” —picking “+”
of parent (a) of parent (a)
and left-most and left-most
“x” of parent “x” of parent
(b) as (b) as
crossover crossover
points points
 16

SYMBOLIC REGRESSION
4 3 2
OF QUARTIC POLYNOMIAL X +X +X +X
(WITH 21 FITNESS CASES)
Independent Dependent
variable X Variable Y
(Input) (Output)
-1.0 0.0000
-0.9 -0.1629
-0.8 -0.2624
-0.7 -0.3129
-0.6 -0.3264
-0.5 -0.3125
-0.4 -0.2784
-0.3 -0.2289
-0.2 -0.1664
-0.1 -0.0909
0 0.0
0.1 0.1111
0.2 0.2496
0.3 0.4251
0.4 0.6496
0.5 0.9375
0.6 1.3056
0.7 1.7731
0.8 2.3616
0.9 3.0951
1.0 4.0000
 17

TABLEAU⎯SYMBOLIC REGRESSION
4 3 2
OF QUARTIC POLYNOMIAL X +X +X +X
Objective: Find a function of one independent
variable, in symbolic form, that fits a
given sample of 21 (xi, yi) data points
Terminal set: X (the independent variable).
Function set: +, -, *, %, SIN, COS, EXP,
RLOG
Fitness cases: The given sample of 21 data points (xi,
yi) where the xi are in interval [–1,+1].
Raw fitness: The sum, taken over the 21 fitness cases,
of the absolute value of difference
between value of the dependent variable
produced by the individual program and
the target value yi of the dependent
variable.
Standardized Equals raw fitness.
fitness:
Hits: Number of fitness cases (0 – 21) for
which the value of the dependent
variable produced by the individual
program comes within 0.01 of the target
value yi of the dependent variable.
Wrapper: None.
Parameters: Population size, M = 500.
Maximum number of generations to be
run, G = 51.
Success An individual program scores 21 hits.
Predicate:
 18

SYMBOLIC REGRESSION
4 3 2
OF QUARTIC POLYNOMIAL X +X +X +X

WORST-OF-GENERATION INDIVIDUAL
IN GENERATION 0 WITH RAW FITNESS
OF 1038
(EXP (- (% X (- X (SIN X)))
(RLOG (RLOG (* X X)))))
Equivalent to

ex/(x-sin x) - log log x*x

 19

SYMBOLIC REGRESSION
4 3 2
OF QUARTIC POLYNOMIAL X +X +X +X

MEDIAN INDIVIDUAL IN GENERATION

0 WITH RAW FITNESS OF 23.67
(AVERGAGE ERROR OF 1.3)

(COS (COS (+ (- (* X X) (% X
X)) X)))
Equivalent to
Cos [Cos (x + x – 1)] 2

3 x 4 + x3 + x 2 + x

2 Cos [Cos (x 2 + x –1)]

0
-1 0 1
-1
 20

SYMBOLIC REGRESSION
4 3 2
OF QUARTIC POLYNOMIAL X +X +X +X

BEST-OF-GENERATION INDIVIDUAL IN
GENERATION 0 WITH RAW FITNESS OF
4.47 (AVERGAGE ERROR OF 0.2)

(* X (+ (+ (- (% X X) (% X X))
(SIN (- X X))) (RLOG (EXP (EXP
X)))))
Equivalent to
xex

4
x 4 + x3 + x 2 + x
3
xe x
2

0
-1 0 1
-1
 21

SYMBOLIC REGRESSION
4 3 2
OF QUARTIC POLYNOMIAL X +X +X +X

CREATION OF GENERATION 1 FROM

GENERATION 0

• In the so-called "generational" model for genetic

algorithms, a new population is created that is equal in size
to the old population
• 1% mutation (i.e., 5 individuals out of 500)
• 9% reproduction (i.e., 45 individuals)
• 90% crossover (i.e., 225 pairs of parents ⎯ yielding 450
offspring)

• All participants in mutation, reproduction, and crossover

are chosen from the current population
PROBABILISTICALLY, BASED ON FITNESS
• Anything can happen
• Nothing is guaranteed
• The search is heavily (but not completely) biased toward
high-fitness individuals
• The best is not guaranteed to be chosen
• The worst is not necessarily excluded
• Some (but not much) attention is given even to low-
fitness individuals
 22

SYMBOLIC REGRESSION
4 3 2
OF QUARTIC POLYNOMIAL X +X +X +X

BEST-OF-GENERATION INDIVIDUAL IN
GENERATION 2 WITH RAW FITNESS OF
2.57 (AVERGAGE ERROR OF 0.1)

(+ (* (* (+ X (* X (* X (% (% X
X) (+ X X)))))
(+ X (* X X))) X) X)
Equivalent to...
4 3 2
x + 1.5x + 0.5x + x
 23

SYMBOLIC REGRESSION
4 3 2
OF QUARTIC POLYNOMIAL X +X +X +X

BEST-OF-RUN INDIVIDUAL IN
GENERATION 34 WITH RAW FITNESS
OF 0.00 (100%-CORRECT)
(+ X (* (+ X (* (* (+ X (- (COS
(- X X)) (- X X))) X) X)) X))
Equivalent to
4 3 2
x +x +x +x
+

X *

+ X

X *

* X

+ X

X –

COS –

– X X

X X
 24

SYMBOLIC REGRESSION
4 3 2
OF QUARTIC POLYNOMIAL X +X +X +X

OBSERVATIONS
• GP works on this problem
• GP determines the size and shape of the
solution
• number of operations needed to solve the problem
• size and shape of the program tree
• content of the program tree (i.e., sequence of operations)
• GP operates the same whether the solution
is linear, polynomial, a rational fraction of
polynomials, exponential, trigonometric, etc.
• It's not how a human programmer would
have done it
• Cos (X - X) = 1
• Not parsimonious
• The extraneous functions – SIN, EXP,
RLOG, and RCOS are absent in the best
individual of later generations because they
are detrimental
• Cos (X - X) = 1 is the exception that proves the rule
• The answer is algebraically correct (hence
no further cross validation is needed)
 25

CLASSIFICATION PROBLEM
INTER-TWINED SPIRALS
 26

GP TABLEAU – INTERTWINED SPIRALS

Objective: Find a program to classify a given point
in the x-y plane to the red or blue spiral.
Terminal set: X, Y, ℜ , where ℜ is the ephemeral
random floating-point constant ranging
between –1.000 and +1.000.
Function set: +, -, *, %, IFLTE, SIN, COS.
Fitness cases: 194 points in the x-y plane.
Raw fitness: The number of correctly classified points
(0 – 194)
Standardized The maximum raw fitness (i.e., 194)
fitness: minus the raw fitness.
Hits: Equals raw fitness.
Wrapper: Maps any individual program returning
a positive value to class +1 (red) and
maps all other values to class –1 (blue).
Parameters: M = 10,000 (with over-selection). G = 51.
Success An individual program scores 194 hits.
predicate:
 27

WALL-FOLLOWING PROBLEM

12 SONAR SENSORS
S01 = 16.4 S02 = 12.0 S03 = 12.0 S04 = 16.4

S00 = 12.4
S05 = 9.0

S11 = 12.4
S06 = 16.2

S09 = 9.4

S10 = 17.0 S08 = 16.6 S07 = 22.1

 28

WALL-FOLLOWING PROBLEM

FITNESS MEASURE
 29

WALL-FOLLOWING PROBLEM
BEST PROGRAM OF GENERATION 57
• Scores 56 hits (out of 56)
• 145point program tree
 30

24 PROBLEMS SHOWN IN 1992

VIDEOTAPE
GENETIC PROGRAMMING: THE MOVIE
(KOZA AND RICE 1992)
• Symbolic Regression
• Intertwined Spirals
• Artificial Ant
• Truck Backer Upper
• Broom Balancing
• Wall Following
• Box Moving
• Discrete Pursuer-Evader Game
• Differential Pursuer-Evader Game
• Co-Evolution of Game-Playing Strategies
• Inverse Kinematics
• Emergent Collecting
• Central Place Foraging
• Block Stacking
• Randomizer
• 1-D Cellular Automata
• 2-D Cellular Automata
• Task Prioritization
• Programmatic Image Compression
• Finding 3√2
• Econometric Exchange Equation
• Optimization (Lizard)
• Boolean 11-Multiplexer
• 11-Parity–Automatically Defined Functions
 31

AUTOMATICALLY DEFINED
FUNCTIONS (ADFS, SUBROUTINES)

Input Program Output

Potential Potential Potential Potential

Subroutines Loops Recursions Internal
Storage

• Subroutines provide one way to REUSE code ⎯ possibly

with different instantiations of the dummy variables (formal
parameters)
• Loops (and iterations) provide a 2nd way to REUSE code
• Recursion provide a 3rd way to REUSE code
• Memory provides a 4th way ⎯ to REUSE the results of
executing code
 32

AUTOMATICALLY DEFINED
FUNCTIONS (ADFS, SUBROUTINES)

10 FITNESS-CASES SHOWING THE

VALUE OF THE DEPENDENT
VARIABLE, D, ASSOCIATED WITH THE
VALUES OF THE SIX INDEPENDENT
VARIABLES, L , W , H , L , W , H
0 0 0 1 1 1

Fitness L0 W0 H 0 L1 W1 H 1 Dependent
case variable D
1 3 4 7 2 5 3 54
2 7 10 9 10 3 1 600
3 10 9 4 8 1 6 312
4 3 9 5 1 6 4 111
5 4 3 2 7 6 1 –18
6 3 3 1 9 5 4 –171
7 5 9 9 1 7 6 363
8 1 2 9 3 9 2 –36
9 2 6 8 2 6 10 –24
10 8 1 10 7 5 1 45
 33

AUTOMATICALLY DEFINED
FUNCTIONS (ADFS, SUBROUTINES)

SOLUTION WITHOUT ADFS

(- (* (* W0 L0) H0)
(* (* W1 L1) H1))
D = W0*L0*H0 – W1*L1*H1
–

* *

* L0 * W1

W0 H0 L1 H1

H0 H1

L0 L1

W0 W1
 34

AUTOMATICALLY DEFINED
FUNCTIONS (ADFS, SUBROUTINES)

AN OVERALL COMPUTER PROGRAM

CONSISTING OF ONE FUNCTION-
DEFINING BRANCH (ADF,
SUBROUTINE) AND ONE RESULT-
PRODUCING BRANCH (MAIN
PROGRAM)
(progn
(defun volume (arg0 arg1 arg2)
(values
(* arg0 (* arg1 arg2))))
(values (- (volume L0 W0 H0)
(volume L1 W1 H1))))
progn

defun

VOLUME (ARG0 ARG1 values values

* –

ARG0 * VOLUME VOLUME

ARG1 ARG2 L0 W0 H0 L1 W1 H1
 35

AUTOMATICALLY DEFINED
FUNCTIONS (ADFS, SUBROUTINES)

IF WE ADD TWO NEW VARIABLES FOR

VOLUME (V ANDV ), THE 6- 0 1

DIMENSIONAL NON-LINEAR
REGRESSION PROBLEM BECOMES AN
8-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM

Fitness L0 W0 H 0 L1 W1 H 1 V0 V1 D
case
1 3 4 7 2 5 3 84 30 54
2 7 10 9 10 3 1 630 30 600
3 10 9 4 8 1 6 360 48 312
4 3 9 5 1 6 4 135 24 111
5 4 3 2 7 6 1 24 42 –18
6 3 3 1 9 5 4 9 180 –171
7 5 9 9 1 7 6 405 42 363
8 1 2 9 3 9 2 18 54 –36
9 2 6 8 2 6 10 96 120 –24
10 8 1 10 7 5 1 80 35 45

• However, the problem can now be approached as a 2-

dimensional LINEAR regression problem.
 36

AUTOMATICALLY DEFINED
FUNCTIONS (ADFS, SUBROUTINES)

TOP-DOWN VIEW OF THREE STEP

HIERARCHICAL PROBLEM-SOLVING
PROCESS

DIVIDE AND CONQUER

Decompose Solve Solve original
subproblems problem
Subproblem 1 Solution to subproblem 1
Original Solution to
problem original problem
Subproblem 2 Solution to subproblem 2

• Decompose a problem into subproblems

• Solve the subproblems

• Assemble the solutions of the subproblems

into a solution for the overall problem
 37

AUTOMATICALLY DEFINED
FUNCTIONS (ADFS, SUBROUTINES)

BOTTOM-UP VIEW OF THREE STEP

HIERARCHICAL PROBLEM-SOLVING
PROCESS
Identify Change
regularities representation Solve
Original First recoding rule New
representation representation Solution to
of the of the problem
problem Second recoding rule problem

• Identify regularities

• Change the representation

• Solve the overall problem

 38

AUTOMATICALLY DEFINED
FUNCTIONS (ADFS, SUBROUTINES)

• In generation 0, we create a population of programs, each

consisting of a main result-producing branch (RPB) and one
or more function-defining branches (automatically defined
functions, ADFs, subroutines)
• Different ingredients for RPB and ADFs
• The terminal set of an ADF typically contains dummy
arguments (formal parameters), such as ARG0, ARG1, …
• The function set of the RPB contains ADF0, …
• ADFs are private and associated with a particular
individual program in the population
• The entire program is executed and evaluated for fitness
• Genetic operation of reproduction is the same as before
• Mutation operation starts (as before) by picking a
mutation point from either RPB or an ADF and deleting the
subtree rooted at that point. As before, a subtree is then
grown at the point. The new subtree is composed of the
allowable ingredients for that point ⎯ so that the result is a
syntactically valid executable program.
• Crossover operation starts (as before) by picking a
crossover point from either RPB or an ADF of one parent.
The choice of crossover point in the second parent is then
restricted (e.g., to the RPB or to the ADF) ⎯ so that when
the subtrees are swapped, the result is a syntactically valid
executable program.
 39

AUTOMATICALLY DEFINED
FUNCTIONS (ADFS, SUBROUTINES)

8 MAIN POINTS FROM BOOK

GENETIC PROGRAMMING II:
AUTOMATIC DISCOVERY OF REUSABLE
PROGRAMS (KOZA 1994)

• ADFs work.
• ADFs do not solve problems in the style of human
programmers.
• ADFs reduce the computational effort required to solve a
problem.
• ADFs usually improve the parsimony of the solutions to a
problem.
• As the size of a problem is scaled up, the size of solutions
increases more slowly with ADFs than without them.
• As the size of a problem is scaled up, the computational
effort required to solve a problem increases more slowly
with ADFs than without them.
• The advantages in terms of computational effort and
parsimony conferred by ADFs increase as the size of the
problem is scaled up.
 40

REUSE

MEMORY AND STORAGE

(A) (B) (C) (D)

• (A) Settable (named) variables (Genetic Programming,

Koza 1992) using setting (writing) functions (SETM0 X)
and (SETM1 Y) and reading by means of terminals M0 and
M1.
• (B) Indexed memory similar to linear (vector) computer
memory (Teller 1994) using (READ K) and(WRITE X K)
• (C) Matrix memory (Andre 1994)
• (D) Relational memory (Brave 1995, 1996)

LANGDON'S DATA STRUCTURES

• Stacks
• Queues
• Lists
• Rings
 41

REUSE

AUTOMATICALLY DEFINED
ITERATIONS (ADIS)

• Overall program consisting of an automatically defined

function ADF0, an iteration-performing branch IPB0, and a
result-producing branch RPB0.
• Iteration is over a known, fixed set
• protein or DNA sequence (of varying length
• time-series data
• two-dimensional array of pixels
 42

REUSE

TRANSMEMBRANE SEGMENT
IDENTIFICATION PROBLEM
• Goal is to classify a given protein segment as being a
transmembrane domain or non-transmembrane area of the
protein
• Generation 20 ⎯ Run 3 ⎯ Subset-creating version
• in-sample correlation of 0.976
• out-of-sample correlation of 0.968
• out-of-sample error rate 1.6%
(progn

(defun ADF0 ()
(ORN (ORN (ORN (I?) (H?)) (ORN (P?) (G?))) (ORN (ORN
(ORN (Y?) (N?)) (ORN (T?) (Q?))) (ORN (A?) (H?))))))

(defun ADF1 ()
(values (ORN (ORN (ORN (A?) (I?)) (ORN (L?) (W?)))
(ORN (ORN (T?) (L?)) (ORN (T?) (W?))))))

(defun ADF2 ()
(values (ORN (ORN (ORN (ORN (ORN (D?) (E?)) (ORN (ORN
(ORN (D?) (E?)) (ORN (ORN (T?) (W?)) (ORN (Q?)
(D?)))) (ORN (K?) (P?)))) (ORN (K?) (P?))) (ORN (T?)
(W?))) (ORN (ORN (E?) (A?)) (ORN (N?) (R?))))))

(progn (loop-over-residues
(SETM0 (+ (- (ADF1) (ADF2)) (SETM3 M0))))

(values (% (% M3 M0) (% (% (% (- L -0.53) (* M0

M0)) (+ (% (% M3 M0) (% (+ M0 M3) (% M1 M2))) M2)) (%
M3 M0))))))
 43

REUSE

EXAMPLE OF A PROGRAM WITH A

FOUR-BRANCH AUTOMATICALLY
DEFINED LOOP (ADL0) AND A RESULT-
PRODUCING BRANCH
progn 400

defloop 410
values 440

IFLTE 415 values SETM1 progn 450

ADL0 LIST SETM1
413 416 420
411 412

LEN M1 -73 +22 SETM0 ADL0 % 470

0 +
414 417 460

+ 1 M0 LEN
M1

M0 READV

M1
 44

REUSE

AUTOMATICALLY DEFINED
RECURSION (ADR0) AND A RESULT-
PRODUCING BRANCH
• a recursion condition branch, RCB
• a recursion body branch, RBB
• a recursion update branch, RUB
• a recursion ground branch, RGB
progn 600

defrecursion 610 values 670

ADL0 LIST values 620 IFGTZ 630 * 650 IFGTZ 660 ADR0 680

611 612

661
ARG0 IFGTZ ADR0 IFGTZ IFGTZ 1 3 RLI -1 1 5

613 621 631 635 640 651 652 663 664 681

632
ARG0 1 -1 - RLI -1 1 RLI 1 -1 ARG0

622 623 624 636 638 639 641 643 644 662

ARG0 1 ARG0 ARG0

633 634 637 642
 45

GP TECHNIQUES

• control structures involving multiple result-producing

branches (Luke and Spector 1996a Bennett 1996a Svingen
1997)
• adaptive self-modifying ontogenetic genetic programming
(Spector and Stoffel 1996a 1996b)
• cultural storage and transmission (Spector and Luke 1996a
1996b)
• hierarchical problem solving (Rosca and Ballard 1994a
1994b; Rosca 1995; Rosca 1997)
• modules (Angeline and Pollack 1993 1994; Angeline 1993
1994; Kinnear 1994b)
• logic grammars (Wong and Leung 1995a 1995b 1995c
1995d 1995e 1995f 1997)
• cellular encoding (developmental genetic programming)
for evolving neural networks (Gruau 1992a 1992b 1993
1994a 1994b; Gruau and Whitley 1993; Esparcia-Alcazar
and Sharman 1997)
• developmental methods for evolving finite automata using
genetic programming (Brave 1996a)
• developmental methods for shape optimization (Kennelly
1997)
• evolving graphs and networks (Luke and Spector 1996b)
• using a grammar to represent bias and background
knowledge (Whigham 1995a 1995b 1996)
• developmental methods for fuzzy logic systems (Tunstel
and Jamshidi 1996)
 46

GP TECHNIQUES ⎯ CONTINUED

• diploidy and dominance (Greene 1997a 1997b)

• Turing completeness of genetic programming (Teller
1994c; Nordin and Banzhaf 1995)
• evolution of chemical topological structures (Nachbar 1997
1998)
• interactive fitness measures (Poli and Cagnoni 1997;) and
in particular in graphics and art (Sims 1991a 1991b 1992a
1992b 1993)
• variations in crossover operations (Poli and Langdon 1997)
• distributed processes and multi-agent systems (Haynes
Sen Schoenefeld and Wainwright 1995; Ryan 1995; Luke
and Spector 1996a; Iba 1996; Iba Nozoe and Ueda 1997;
Qureshi 1996; Crosbie and Spafford 1995)
• complexity-based fitness measures using minimum
description length (Iba Kurita de Garis and Sato 1993; Iba
deGaris and Sato 1994)
• co-evolution (Reynolds 1994c)
• steady state genetic programming (Reynolds 1993 1994a
1994b)
• use of noise in fitness cases (Reynolds 1994d)
• balancing parsimony and accuracy (Zhang and
Muhlenbein 1993 1994 1995; Blickle l997)
• automatically defined features using genetic algorithms in
conjunction with genetic programming (Andre 1994a)
• grammatical evolution (Conor Ryan and Michael O'Neill)
 47

GP TECHNIQUES ⎯ CONTINUED

• graphical program structures and neural programming

(Teller and Veloso 1996, 1997; Teller 1998; Poli 1997a,
1997b)
• automatically defined macros (ADMs) for simultaneous
evolution of programs and their control structures (Spector
1996)
• libraries (Koza 1990a; Koza and Rice 1991; Koza 1992a,
section 6.5.4; Angeline and Pollack 1993, 1994; Angeline
1993, 1994; Kinnear 1994b)
• strong typing (Montana 1995; Montana and Czerwinski
1996; Janikow 1996; Yu and Clack 1997a) and constrained
syntactic structures (Koza 1992a)
• explicit pointers (Andre 1994c)
• evolution of machine code (Nordin 1994, 1997) and linear
genomes (Banzhaf, Nordin, Keller, and Francone 1998)
 48

ARCHITECTURE-ALTERING
OPERATIONS

PROTEIN ALIGNMENT OF "A" AND "B"

PROTEINS
First.protein MRIKFLVVLA VICLFAHYAS ASGMGGDKKP KDAPKPKDAP KPKEVKPVKA
50
Second.protein MRIKFLVVLA VICLLAHYAS ASGMGGDKKP KDAPKPKDAP KPKEVKPVKA
50

First.protein ESSEYEIEVI KHQKEKTEKK EKEKKTHVET KKEVKKKEKK QIPCSEKLKD

100
Second.protein DSSEYEIEVI KHQKEKTEKK EKEKKAHVEI KKKIKNKEKK FVPCSEILKD
100

First.protein EKLDCETKGV PAGYKAIFKF TENEE-CDWT CDYEALPPPP GAKKDDKKEK

149
Second.protein EKLECEKNAT P-GYKALFEF KESESFCEWE CDYEAI---P GAKKDEKKEK
146

First.protein KTVKVVKPPK EKPPKKLRKE CSGEKVIKFQ NCLVKIRGLI AFGDKTKNFD

199
Second.protein KVVKVIKPPK EKPPKKPRKE CSGEKVIKFQ NCLVKIRGLI AFGDKTKNFD
196

First.protein KKFAKLVQGK QKKGAKKAKG GKKAAPKPGP KPGPK----Q ADKP------

239
Second.protein KKFAKLVQGK QKKGAKKAKG GKKAEPKPGP KPAPKPGPKP APKPVPKPAD
246

First.protein --KDAKK 244

Second.protein KPKDAKK 253
 49

ARCHITECTURE-ALTERING
OPERATIONS

PROGRAM WITH 1 TWO-ARGUMENT

AUTOMATICALLY DEFINED FUNCTION
(ADF0) AND 1 RESULT-PRODUCING
BRANCH – ARGUMENT MAP OF {2}
400
progn

410 defun values 470

ADF0 LIST 412 values 419 AND 480

411
ARG0 ARG1
413 414 481 ADF0 NAND 485
OR 420

D0 ADF0 487
421
ARG1 AND 422 D1 D2
482 483 486
ARG1 ARG0 D3 NOR 489
423 424 488
D4 D0
490 491
 50

ARCHITECTURE-ALTERING
OPERATIONS

PROGRAM WITH ARGUMENT MAP OF

{2, 2} CREATED USING THE
OPERATION OF BRANCH
DUPLICATION

progn 500

defun 540 values 570

defun 510

541 542 AND

ADF0 LIST values ADF1 LIST values 549
519 581
511
ARG0 ARG1 ARG0 ARG1 ADF1 NAND
550
OR 520 543 544 OR
D1 D2 D0 ADF0 587
ARG1 AND ARG1 AND 582 583 589
D3 NOR
ARG1 ARG0 ARG1 ARG0 588
D4 D0
590 591
 51

ARCHITECTURE-ALTERING
OPERATIONS

PROGRAM WITH ARGUMENT MAP OF

{3} CREATED USING THE OPERATION
OF ARGUMENT DUPLICATION
600
progn

610 defun
values 670

611 ADF0 LIST 612 values 619 AND

ARG0 ARG1 ARG2
613 614 615 620 681 ADF0 NAND
OR

ARG2 AND 622 D1 D2 D2 D0 ADF0 687

621
682 683 684
ARG1 ARG0 D3 NOR NOR
689 695
623 624 688
D4 D0 D4 D0
690 691 696 697
 52

ARCHITECTURE-ALTERING
OPERATIONS

SPECIALIZATION – REFINEMENT –
CASE SPLITTING
• Branch duplication
• Argument duplication
• Branch creation
• Argument creation

GENERALIZATION
• Branch deletion
• Argument deletion
 53

16 ATTRIBUTES OF A SYSTEM FOR

AUTOMATICALLY CREATING
COMPUTER PROGRAMS

1 ⎯ Starts with "What needs to be done"

2 ⎯ Tells us "How to do it"
3 ⎯ Produces a computer program
4 ⎯ Automatic determination of program size
5 ⎯ Code reuse
6 ⎯ Parameterized reuse
7 ⎯ Internal storage
8 ⎯ Iterations, loops, and recursions
9 ⎯ Self-organization of hierarchies
10 ⎯ Automatic determination of program architecture
11 ⎯ Wide range of programming constructs
12 ⎯ Well-defined
13 ⎯ Problem-independent
14 ⎯ Wide applicability
15 ⎯ Scalable
16 ⎯ Competitive with human-produced results
 54

ARCHITECTURE-ALTERING
OPERATIONS

GENETIC PROGRAMMING
PROBLEM SOLVER (GPPS)
⎯ VERSION 2.0
INPUT OUTPUT
VECTOR VECTOR

INPUT(0) OUTPUT(0)

INPUT(1) OUTPUT(1)

INPUT(2) OUTPUT(2)
• •
• GPPS 2.0 •
• PROGRAM •
INPUT(N1) OUTPUT(N2)

POTENTIAL POTENTIAL POTENTIAL POTENTIAL

SUBROUTINES LOOPS INTERNAL
RECURSIONS
STORAGE
 55

IMPLEMENTATION OF GP IN
ASSEMBLY CODE – COMPILED
GENETIC PROGRAMMING SYSTEM
(NORDIN 1994)
• Nordin, Peter. 1997. Evolutionary Program Induction of
Binary Machine Code and its Application. Munster,
Germany: Krehl Verlag.
• Opportunity to speed up GP that is done by slowly
INTERPRETING GP program trees.
Instead of interpreting the GP program tree, EXECUTE
this sequence of assembly code.
• Can identify small set of primitive functions that is useful
for large group of problems, such as +, -, *, % and also use
some conditional operations (IFLTE), some logical
functions (AND, OR, XOR, XNOR) and perhaps others (e.g.,
SRL, SLL, SETHI from Sun 4).
• Then, generate random sequence of assembly code
instructions at generation 0 from this small set of machine
code instructions (referring to certain registers).
• If ADFs are involved, generate fixed header and footer of
function and appropriate function call.
• Perform crossover possibly so as to preserve the integrity
of subtrees.
• If ADFs are involved, perform crossover so as to preserve
the integrity of the header and footer of function and the
function call.
 56

DESIGN OF QUANTUM COMPUTER

CIRCUITS USING GP (SPECTOR ET AL.)
• Spector, Lee, Barnum, Howard, and Bernstein, Herbert J. 1998.
Genetic programming for quantum computers. In Koza, John R.,
Banzhaf, Wolfgang, Chellapilla, Kumar, Deb, Kalyanmoy, Dorigo,
Marco, Fogel, David B., Garzon, Max H., Goldberg, David E., Iba,
Hitoshi, and Riolo, Rick. (editors). 1998. Genetic Programming 1998:
Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference. San Francisco, CA:
Morgan Kaufmann. Pages 365 - 373.
• Spector, Lee, Barnum, Howard, and Bernstein, Herbert J. 1999.
Quantum computing applications of genetic programming. In
Spector, Lee, Langdon, William B., O'Reilly, Una-May, and
Angeline, Peter (editors). 1999. Advances in Genetic Programming 3.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Pages 135-160.
• Spector, Lee, Barnum, Howard, Bernstein, Herbert J., and
Swamy, N. 1999. Finding a better-than-classical quantum AND/OR
algorithm using genetic programming. In IEEE. Proceedings of 1999
Congress on Evolutionary Computation. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.
Pages 2239-2246.
• Barnum, H., Bernstein, H.J. and Spector, Lee. 2000. Quantum
circuits for OR and AND of ORs. Journal of Physics A:
Mathematical and General. 33 (45) 8047-8057. November 17, 2000).
• Spector, Lee, and Bernstein, Herbert J. 2003. Communication
capacities of some quantum gates, discovered in part through
genetic programming. In Shapiro, Jeffery H. and Hirota, Osamu
(editors). Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on
Quantum Communication, Measurement, and Computing. Princeton,
NJ: Rinton Press. Pages 500-503.
 57

CELLULAR ENCODING
(DEVELOPMENTAL GENETIC
PROGRAMMING)

• Gruau, Frederic. 1992b. Cellular Encoding of Genetic

Neural Networks. Technical report 92-21. Laboratoire de
l'Informatique du Parallélisme. Ecole Normale Supérieure
de Lyon. May 1992.
• Also: Gruau 1992a 1992b 1993 1994a 1994b; Gruau and
Whitley 1993; Esparcia-Alcazar and Sharman 1997)
• Applied by Gruau and Whitley (1995) to 2-pole-balancing
problem
• Applied by Gruau to six-legged walking creature
• Applied by Brave (1995, 1996) to Finite Automata
 58

AUTOMATIC PARALLELIZATION OF
SERIAL PROGRAMS USING GP
• Ryan, Conor. 1999. Automatic Re-engineering of Software
Using Genetic Programming. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
• Start with working serial computer program (embryo)
• GP program tree contains validity-preserving functions
that modify the current program. That is, the functions in
the program tree side-effect the current program.
• Execution of the complete GP program tree progressively
modifies the current program
• Fitness is based on execution time on the parallel computer
system
 59

DEVELOPMENTAL GP

THE INITIAL CIRCUIT

• Initial circuit consists of embryo and test fixture
• Embryo has modifiable wires (e.g., Z0 AND Z1)
• Test fixture has input and output ports and usually has
source resistor and load resistor. There are no modifiable
wires (or modifiable components) in the test fixture.
• Circuit-constructing program trees consist of
• Component-creating functions
• Topology-modifying functions
• Development-controlling functions
• Circuit-constructing program tree has one result-
producing branch for each modifiable wire in embryo of the
initial circuit
1 LIST

2 C 3 FLIP

-
 60

DEVELOPMENTAL GP

DEVELOPMENT OF A CIRCUIT FROM A

CIRCUIT-CONSTRUCTING PROGRAM
TREE AND THE INITIAL CIRCUIT

(LIST (C (– 0.963 (– (– -0.875

-0.113) 0.880)) (series (flip
end) (series (flip end) (L -
0.277 end) end) (L (– -0.640
0.749) (L -0.123 end)))) (flip
(nop (L -0.657 end)))))
1 LIST

2 C FLIP
3

– 4 SERIES 5 6 NOP

7
0.963 – 8 FLIP 9 SERIES 1 0 L 1 1 1 2 L

1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1
– 0.880 END FLIP L END – L -0.657 END
2 2

-0.875 -0.113 END -0.277 END -0.640 0.749 -0.123 END

2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1
 61

DEVELOPMENTAL GP

RESULT OF THE C (2) FUNCTION

(LIST (C (– 0.963 (– (– -0.875

-0.113) 0.880)) (series (flip
end) (series (flip end) (L -
0.277 end) end) (L (– -0.640
0.749) (L -0.123 end)))) (flip
(nop (L -0.657 end)))))
NOTE: Interpretation of arithmetic value
 62

DEVELOPMENTAL GP

RESULT OF SERIES (5) FUNCTION

(LIST (C (– 0.963 (– (– -0.875

-0.113) 0.880)) (series (flip
end) (series (flip end) (L -
0.277 end) end) (L (– -0.640
0.749) (L -0.123 end)))) (flip
(nop (L -0.657 end)))))
 63

EVALUATION OF FITNESS OF A
CIRCUIT

z0
IN OUT
+
Embryonic Circuit

Program Tree

Fully Designed Circuit (NetGraph)

Circuit Netlist (ascii)

Circuit Simulator (SPICE)

Circuit Behavior (Output)

Fitness
 64

BEHAVIOR OF A LOWPASS FILTER

VIEWED IN THE FREQUENCY DOMAIN

• Examine circuit's behavior for each of 101 frequency

values chosen over five decades of frequency (from 1 Hz to
100,000 Hz) with each decade divided into 20 parts (using a
logarithmic scale). The fitness measure
• does not penalize ideal values
• slightly penalizes acceptable deviations
• heavily penalizes unacceptable deviations
100
• Fitness is sum F(t) = ∑ [ W ( f i ) d ( f i ) ]
i= 0

• f(i) is the frequency of fitness case i

•d(x) is the difference between the target and observed
values at frequency of fitness case i
• W(y,x) is the weighting at frequency x
 65

TABLEAU ⎯ LOWPASS FILTER

(WITHOUT ADFS OR ARCHITECTURE-
ALTERING OPERATIONS)
Objective: Design a lowpass filter composed of
inductors and capacitors with a
passband below 1,000 Hz, a stopband
above 2,000 Hz, a maximum allowable
passband deviation of 30 millivolts, and
a maximum allowable stopband
deviation of 1 millivolt.
Test fixture and One-input, one-output initial circuit with
embryo: a source resistor, load resistor, and two
modifiable wires.
Program Two result-producing branches, RPB0
architecture: and RPB1 (i.e., one RPB per modifiable
wire in the embryo).
Initial function For construction-continuing subtrees:
set for the result- Fccs-rpb-initial = {C, L, SERIES,
producing PARALLEL0, FLIP, NOP, TWO_GROUND,
branches: TWO_VIA0, TWO_VIA1, TWO_VIA2,
TWO_VIA3, TWO_VIA4, TWO_VIA5,
TWO_VIA6, TWO_VIA7}.
For arithmetic-performing subtrees:
Faps = {+, -}.
Initial terminal For construction-continuing subtrees:
set for the result- Tccs-rpb-initial = {END}.
producing For arithmetic-performing subtrees:
branches: Taps = {←smaller-reals}.
 66

Fitness cases: 101 frequency values in an interval of

five decades of frequency values between
1 Hz and 100,000 Hz.
Raw fitness: Fitness is the sum, over the 101 sampled
frequencies (fitness cases), of the
absolute weighted deviation between the
actual value of the output voltage that is
produced by the circuit at the probe
point and the target value for voltage.
The weighting penalizes unacceptable
output voltages much more heavily than
deviating, but acceptable, voltages.
Standardized Same as raw fitness.
fitness:
Hits: The number of hits is defined as the
number of fitness cases (out of 101) for
which the voltage is acceptable or ideal
or that lie in the "don't care" band.
Wrapper: None.
Parameters: M = 1,000 to 320,000. G = 1,001. Q
=1,000. D = 64. B = 2%. Nrpb = 2. Srpb =
200.
Result Best-so-far pace-setting individual.
designation:
Success A program scores the maximum number
predicate: (101) of hits.
 67

EVOLVED CAMPBELL FILTER

(7-RUNG LADDER)

• This genetically evolved circuit infringes on U. S. patent

1,227,113 issued to George Campbell of American Telephone
and Telegraph in 1917 (claim 2):
An electric wave filter consisting of a connecting line of
negligible attenuation composed of a plurality of sections,
each section including a capacity element and an inductance
element, one of said elements of each section being in series
with the line and the other in shunt across the line, said
capacity and inductance elements having precomputed
values dependent upon the upper limiting frequency and
the lower limiting frequency of a range of frequencies it is
desired to transmit without attenuation, the values of said
capacity and inductance elements being so proportioned
that the structure transmits with practically negligible
attenuation sinusoidal currents of all frequencies lying
between said two limiting frequencies, while attenuating
and approximately extinguishing currents of neighboring
frequencies lying outside of said limiting frequencies."
 68

EVOLVED ZOBEL FILTER

• Infringes on U. S. patent 1,538,964 issued in 1925 to Otto

Zobel of American Telephone and Telegraph Company for
an “M-derived half section” used in conjunction with one or
more “constant K” sections.
• One M-derived half section (C2 and L11)
• Cascade of three symmetric T-sections
 69

GENETICALLY EVOLVED 10 DB
AMPLIFIER FROM GENERATION 45

SHOWING THE VOLTAGE GAIN STAGE

AND DARLINGTON EMITTER
FOLLOWER SECTION

Darlington
Emitter-
Follower
Voltage Gain Stage Stage
 70

POST-2000 PATENTED INVENTIONS

HIGH CURRENT LOAD CIRCUIT

BEST-OF-RUN FROM GENERATION 114
 71

POST-2000 PATENTED INVENTIONS

REGISTER-CONTROLLED CAPACITOR
CIRCUIT

SMALLEST COMPLIANT FROM

GENERATION 98
 72

POST-2000 PATENTED INVENTIONS

LOW-VOLTAGE CUBIC SIGNAL

GENERATION CIRCUIT
BEST-OF-RUN FROM GENERATION 182
 73

POST-2000 PATENTED INVENTIONS

LOW-VOLTAGE BALUN CIRCUIT

BEST EVOLVED FROM GENERATION 84
 74

POST-2000 PATENTED INVENTIONS

VOLTAGE-CURRENT-CONVERSION
CIRCUIT
BEST-OF-RUN FROM GENERATION 109
 75

POST-2000 PATENTED INVENTIONS

TUNABLE INTEGRATED ACTIVE

FILTER — GENERATION 50
 76

21 PREVIOUSLY PATENTED
INVENTIONS REINVENTED BY GP
Invention Date Inventor Place Patent
1 Darlington 1953 Sidney Bell Telephone 2,663,806
emitter- Darlington Laboratories
follower
section
2 Ladder filter 1917 George American 1,227,113
Campbell Telephone and
Telegraph
3 Crossover 1925 Otto Julius American 1,538,964
filter Zobel Telephone and
Telegraph
4 “M-derived 1925 Otto Julius American 1,538,964
half section” Zobel Telephone and
filter Telegraph
5 Cauer 1934– Wilhelm University of 1,958,742,
(elliptic) 1936 Cauer Gottingen 1,989,545
topology for
filters
6 Sorting 1962 Daniel G. General Precision, 3,029,413
network O’Connor Inc.
and
Raymond J.
Nelson
7 Computation See See text See text See text
al circuits text
8 Electronic See See text See text See text
thermometer text
9 Voltage See See text See text See text
reference text
circuit
10 60 dB and 96 See See text See text See text
dB amplifiers text
11 Second- 1942 Harry Jones Brown Instrument 2,282,726
derivative Company
controller
12 Philbrick 1956 George George A. 2,730,679
circuit Philbrick Philbrick
Researches
13 NAND circuit 1971 David H. Texas Instruments 3,560,760
Chung and Incorporated
Bill H.
 77

Terrell
14 PID 1939 Albert Imperial Chemical 2,175,985
(proportional Callender Limited
, integrative, and Allan
and Stevenson
derivative)
controller
15 Negative 1937 Harold S. American 2,102,670,
feedback Black Telephone and 2,102,671
Telegraph
16 Low-voltage 2001 Sang Gug Information and 6,265,908
balun circuit Lee Communications
University
17 Mixed 2000 Turgut Lucent 6,013,958
analog-digital Sefket Aytur Technologies Inc.
variable
capacitor
circuit
18 High-current 2001 Timothy International 6,211,726
load circuit Daun- Business Machines
Lindberg Corporation
and Michael
Miller
19 Voltage- 2000 Akira Mitsumi Electric 6,166,529
current Ikeuchi and Co., Ltd.
conversion Naoshi
circuit Tokuda
20 Cubic 2000 Stefano Conexant Systems, 6,160,427
function Cipriani and Inc.
generator Anthony A.
Takeshian
21 Tunable 2001 Robert Infineon 6,225,859
integrated Irvine and Technologies AG
active filter Bernd Kolb

2 PATENTABLE INVENTIONS CREATED

BY GENETIC PROGRAMMING
Claimed invention Date of patent Inventors
application
1 Improved general- July 12, 2002 Martin A. Keane, John R. Koza,
purpose tuning rules and Matthew J. Streeter
for a PID controller
2 Improved general- July 12, 2002 Martin A. Keane, John R. Koza,
purpose non-PID and Matthew J. Streeter
 78

controllers
 79

NOVELTY-DRIVEN EVOLUTION

EXAMPLE OF LOWPASS FILTER

• Two factors in fitness measure
• Circuit’s behavior in the frequency domain
• Largest number of nodes and edges (circuit components)
of a subgraph of the given circuit that is isomorphic to a
subgraph of a template representing the prior art. Graph
isomorphism algorithm with the cost function being based
on the number of shared nodes and edges (instead of just
the number of nodes).

PRIOR ART TEMPLATE

 80

NOVELTY-DRIVEN EVOLUTION ⎯
CONTINUED
• For circuits not scoring the maximum number (101) of
hits, the fitness of a circuit is the product of the two factors.
• For circuits scoring 101 hits (100%-compliant individuals),
fitness is the number of shared nodes and edges divided by
10,000.

FITNESS OF EIGHT 100%-COMPLIANT

CIRCUITS
Solution Frequency Isomorphism Fitness
factor factor
1 0.051039 7 0.357273
2 0.117093 7 0.819651
3 0.103064 7 0.721448
4 0.161101 7 1.127707
5 0.044382 13 0.044382
6 0.133877 7 0.937139
7 0.059993 5 0.299965
8 0.062345 11 0.685795
 81

SOLUTION NO. 1

SOLUTION NO. 5
 82

LAYOUT ⎯ LOWPASS FILTER

100%-COMPLIANT CIRCUITS

GENERATION 25 WITH 5 CAPACITORS

AND 11 INDUCTORS ⎯ AREA OF 1775.2 G

G G
C13 C19 L16 L33
(-31.5,8.2) (-25.5,8.2) (-17.5,8.2) (17.5,8.2)
8.91nF 1.75nF 42700uH 90200uH

C17 C29
(-21.5,4.2) (5.5,4)
165nF 311nF

C40 VOUT
(28.5,0.2)
G 295nF

RSRC L2 L12 L11 L10 L26 L9 L32 L31 RLOAD

G V0 (-38.5,-2.8) (-24.5,-2.8) (-11.5,-2.8) (-5.5,-2.8) (0.5,-2.8) (9.5,-2.8) (17.5,-2.8) (23.5,-2.8) (32.5,-2.8) (39,-2.8) G
1k 90200uH 90200uH 90200uH 90200uH 90200uH 90200uH 90200uH 90200uH 1K

L23
(-5.5,-7.2)
90200uH

GENERATION 30 WITH 10 INDUCTORS

AND 5 CAPACITORS ⎯ AREA OF 950.3
L40 L11
(-20.5,6.5) G G G (16.5,6.5)
96000uH 63500uH

C38 C32 C25 C13 C19

(-10.5,0.9) (-3.5,0.9) (4.5,0.9) (12.5,1) (23,0.8)
256nF 256nF 256nF 0.317nF 176uH VOUT

RSRC L28 L34 L37 L35 L22 L10 L2 L9 RLOAD

G V (-31.5,-3.2) (-26.5,-3.2) (-20.5,-3.2) (-14.5,-3.2) (-6.5,-3.2) (0.5,-3.2) (8.5,-3.2) (16.5,-3.2) (29.5,-3.2) (36,-3.2) G
1K 96000uH 96000uH 0.214uH 288000uH 319000uH 63500uH 127000uH 63500uH 1K

BEST-OF-RUN CIRCUIT OF
GENERATION 138 WITH 4 INDUCTORS
AND 4 CAPACITORS ⎯ AREA OF 359.4
VOUT

RSRC L20 L29 L36 L38 RLOAD

G V (-16,5.4) (-7,5.4) (-1,5.4) (5,5.4) (11,5.4) (17.5,5.4) G
1K 253000uH 319000uH 288000uH 96100uH 1K

C27 C34
C18
C12 (2,1.2) (8,1.4)
(-4,1)
(-10,0.5) 256nF 256nF
256nF
155nF
G G G G
 83

LAYOUT ⎯ 60 DB AMPLIFIER (USING

TRANSISTORS)

COMPARISON
Gen Component Area Four Fitness
s penalties
65 27 8,234 33.034348 33.042583
101 19 4,751 0.061965 0.004751

BEST-OF-RUN CIRCUIT FROM

GENERATION 101
R14 O

R18

C52 C10 Q54

G

C53 Q8 Q46 Q47 Q49 Q50

Q39 G

Q43

Q36 G

Q45

R33
P
R30
P
R27

Q48

R24
P
R21
P
R4
V
G
R3

G
 84

PID CONTROLLER
Block diagram of a plant and a PID controller composed of
proportional (P), integrative (I), and derivative (D) blocks

Controller 500

+214.0
532

522 538
530

+1000.0
Reference Control Plant
542
Signal Variable Output
+ +
508 512 524 548 1/s 568 590 Plant 594
510 540 580
560 592
+
- +
520 +15.5
552

526 558 s 578

550
570

596
 85

PROGRAM TREE REPRESENTATION

FOR PID CONTROLLER

• ADF can be used for reuse.

• Automatically defined function ADF0 takes the difference
between the reference signal and the plant output and makes
this difference available to three points in the result-
producing branch
PROGN 700

DEFUN 702 VALUES 790

ADF0 LIST VALUES 712 + 780

704 706
- 710 GAIN 730 1/s 760 s 770

REF PLANT +214.0 ADF0 GAIN 740 GAIN 750

OUTPUT
708 732 734
794 +1000.0 ADF0 +15.5 ADF0
742 744 752 754

• ADF can be used for internal feedback

ADF0

940

+3.14

Input 950 Output

-
930 + 910 942 990 900
920 980
945
 86

FUNCTION SET AND TERMINAL SET

FOR TWO-LAG PLANT PROBLEM

• The function set, F (for every part of the result-producing

branch and any automatically defined functions except the
arithmetic-performing subtrees) is

F = {GAIN, INVERTER, LEAD, LAG, LAG2,

DIFFERENTIAL_INPUT_INTEGRATOR,
DIFFERENTIATOR, ADD_SIGNAL,
SUB_SIGNAL, ADD_3_SIGNAL, ADF0,
ADF1, ADF2, ADF3, ADF4}
• The terminal set, T, (for every part of the result-producing
branch and any automatically defined functions except the
arithmetic-performing subtrees) is

T = { REFERENCE_SIGNAL,
CONTROLLER_OUTPUT, PLANT_OUTPUT,
CONSTANT_0}
 87

ARITHMETIC-PERFORMING SUBTREES
FOR THE TWO-LAG PLANT PROBLEM
• Signal processing blocks such as GAIN, LEAD, LAG,
and LAG2 possess numerical parameter(s)
• Parameter values can be established by an arithmetic-
performing subtree
• A constrained syntactic structure enforces a different
function and terminal set for the arithmetic-performing
subtrees (as opposed to all other parts of the program tree).
• Terminal set, Taps, for the arithmetic-performing subtrees
Taps = {ℜ}
where ℜ denotes constant numerical terminals in the range
from -1.0 to +1.0

• Function set, Faps, for the arithmetic-performing subtrees

Faps = {ADD_NUMERIC, SUB_NUMERIC}
 88

FITNESS MEASURE FOR TWO-LAG

PLANT
• 10-element fitness measure
• The first eight elements of the fitness measure represent
the eight choices of a particular one of two different values
of the plant's internal gain, K (1.0 and 2.0), in conjunction
with a particular one of two different values of the plant's
time constant τ (0.5 and 1.0), in conjunction with a
particular one of two different values for the height of the
reference signal. The two reference signals are step
functions that rise from 0 to 1 volts (or 1 microvolts) at t =
100 milliseconds.
• For each of these eight fitness cases, a transient analysis is
performed in the time domain using the SPICE simulator.
The contribution to fitness for each of these eight elements is
t =0
∫ t e(t ) A(e(t )) Bdt
9 .6

• e(t) is difference between plant output and reference signal.

• Multiplication by B (106. or 1) makes both reference
signals equally influential.
• Additional weighting function, A, heavily penalizes non-
compliant amounts of overshoot. A weights all variations up
to 2% above the reference signal by 1.0, but others by 10.0.
• The 9th element of the fitness measure exposes the
controller to an extreme spiked reference signal.
• The 10th element constrains the frequency of the control
variable so as to avoid extreme high frequencies.
 89

BEST-OF-RUN GENETICALLY
EVOLVED CONTROLLER FROM
GENERATION 32 FOR THE TWO-LAG
PLANT
R(s) 1 U(s)
−1 −1 918.8
1 + 0.168s

1 1
−1 8.15 1+ 0.0385 s
1 + 0.156 s s

Y(s)
1+ 0.515s 1+ 0.0837 s
 90

COMPARISON OF THE TIME-DOMAIN

RESPONSE TO 1-VOLT STEP INPUT FOR
THE EVOLVED CONTROLLER
(TRIANGLES) AND THE BISHOP AND
DORF CONTROLLER (SQUARES) FOR
THE TWO-LAG PLANT WITH K=1 AND
τ=1
GP 1.2
Textbook

800m

600m

400m

200m

0
0 167m 333m 500m 667m 833m 1
Time (s)

OVERALL MODEL
D(s)
+
R(s) U(s) Y(s)
Gp(s) + Gc(s) G(s)
- +

H(s)
 91

COMPARISON OF THE TIME-DOMAIN

RESPONSE TO A 1-VOLT DISTURBANCE
SIGNAL OF THE EVOLVED
CONTROLLER(TRIANGLES) AND THE
BISHOP AND DORF CONTROLLER
(CIRCLES) FOR THE TWO-LAG PLANT
WITH K=1 AND τ=1
GP 10m
Textbook

8m

6m

4m

2m

-2m
0 167m 333m 500m 667m 833m 1
Time(s)
 92

REVERSE ENGINEERING OF
METABOLIC PATHWAYS (4-REACTION
NETWORK IN PHOSPHOLIPID CYCLE)

BEST-OF-GENERATION 66
C00162 Fatty Acid C00116 Glycerol

EC3.1.1.23 Glycerol ATP

K = 1.88 (1.95) Acylglycerol C00116 C00002
lipase

EC3.1.3.21 Glycerol-1- EC2.7.1.30 Glycerol

C00162 Int
K = 1.20 (1.19) phosphatase K = 1.65 (1.69) kinase
Fatty
Acid
Int
EC3.1.1.3
Triacylglycerol
K = 1.46 (1.45)
lipase

OUTPUT
C00165
(MEASURED)
Diacyl-glycerol Cell Membrane

DESIRED
C00162 Fatty Acid C00116 Glycerol

EC3.1.1.23 Glycerol ATP

K = 1.95 Acylglycerol C00116 C00002
lipase

EC3.1.3.21 Glycerol-1- EC2.7.1.30 Glycerol

C00162 C01885
K = 1.19 phosphatase K = 1.69 kinase
Fatty Monoacyl-
Acid glycerol
C00093 C00008
EC3.1.1.3
Triacylglycerol ADP
K = 1.45 sn-glycerol-
lipase
3-
phosphate
OUTPUT
C00165 C00009
(MEASURED)
Diacyl-glycerol Orthophosphate Cell Membrane
 93

CHARACTERISTICS SUGGESTING THE

USE OF GENETIC PROGRAMMING
(1) discovering the size and shape of the solution,
(2) reusing substructures,
(3) discovering the number of substructures,
(4) discovering the nature of the hierarchical references
among substructures,
(5) passing parameters to a substructure,
(6) discovering the type of substructures (e.g., subroutines,
iterations, loops, recursions, or storage),
(7) discovering the number of arguments possessed by a
substructure,
(8) maintaining syntactic validity and locality by means of a
developmental process, or
(9) discovering a general solution in the form of a
parameterized topology containing free variables
 94

MANY DIFFERENT GA/ES ENCODINGS

HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY USED

A mixture of real-valued variables, integer-valued variables,

and categorical variables are encoded in the chromosome
L .220 2 3 C 403. 3 6 L .528 6 9 L .041 9 0

• Bit-string chromosome
Resistor | 2.5 Ω | Node 3 | Node 6
0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0

• The component type (a categorical variable) is encoded

as 2 bits (01 = resistor, etc.)
• The component value (real-valued number) is encoded
as 8 bits
• The node (integer-valued variable) to which the
component's 1st lead is connected is encoded by 3 bits
• The node (integer-valued variable) to which the
component's 2nd lead is connected is encoded by 3 bits
• Note that the number of nodes is capped at 8 (or
assumed to be 8)
 95

IT IS OFTEN POSSIBLE TO USE THE

GENETIC ALGORITHM (GA) OR
EVOLUTION STRATEGIES EVEN WHEN
THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE
SOLUTION IS A MAJOR ISSUE
• Variable-length genetic algorithm (VGA)

• Maintain constraints

Chromosome #1
1st Component | 2nd Component
L .220 1 2 C 403. 2 0

Chromosome #2
1st Component | 2nd Component
R 250. 0 1 C 100. 1 2

Nominal Offspring #1 is invalid

1st Component | 2nd Component
L .220 1 2 C 100. 1 2

• Penalize (in fitness measure)

• Delete
• Repair (most common method)
• Inundate
 96

STRONG INDICATIONS FOR USING

GENETIC ALGORITHM (GA) OR
EVOLUTION STRATEGIES (ES)
• The size and shape of the solution is known or fixed

• Ascertaining numerical parameters is the major issue

• Simplicity is a major consideration

• On-chip evolution the algorithm's logic is implemented
on the chip in hardware
 97

AUTOMATIC SYNTHESIS OF A YAGI-

UDA WIRE ANTENNA USING GENETIC
ALGORITHM (LINDEN 1997)
0.2
y(m)

0.2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x(m)

• When the genetic algorithm (GA) operating on fixed-

length character strings was used to synthesize a particular
Yagi-Uda wire antenna by Linden (1997), the chromosome
was based on
• a particular number of reflectors (one) and
•a particular number of directors.

The chromosome encoded

• the spacing between the parallel wires
• the length of each of the parallel wires
 98

AUTOMATIC SYNTHESIS OF A YAGI-

UDA WIRE ANTENNA USING GENETIC
ALGORITHM (LINDEN 1997) ⎯
CONTINUED
• When the genetic algorithm (GA) operating on fixed-
length character strings was used to synthesize a Yagi-Uda
wire antenna (Linden 1997), the following decisions were
made by the human user prior to the start of the run:
(1) the number of reflectors (one),
(2) the number of directors,
(3) the fact that the driven element, the directors, and the
reflector are all single straight wires,
(4) the fact that the driven element, the directors, and the
reflector are all arranged in parallel,
(5) the fact that the energy source (via the transmission
line) is connected only to single straight wire (the
driven element) ⎯ that is, all the directors and
reflectors are parasitically coupled
• Characteristics (3), (4), and (5) are essential characteristics
of the Yagi-Uda antenna, namely an antenna with multiple
parallel parasitically coupled straight-line directors, a single
parallel parasitically coupled straight-line reflector, and a
straight-line driven element. That it, the GA run assumed
that the answer would be a Yagi-Uda antenna.
 99

AUTOMATIC SYNTHESIS OF A WIRE

ANTENNA

EXAMPLE OF TURTLE FUNCTIONS

USED TO CREATE WIRE ANTENNA

1 (PROGN3
2 (TURN-RIGHT 0.125)
3 (LANDMARK
4 (REPEAT 2
5 (PROGN2
6 (DRAW 1.0 HALF-MM-WIRE)
7 (DRAW 0.5 NO-WIRE)))
8 (TRANSLATE-RIGHT 0.125 0.75))

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

0.2
y(m)

0.2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x(m)
 100

BEST-OF-RUN ANTENNA FROM

GENERATION 90
⎯ FITNESS OF-16.04

0.2
y(m)

0.2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x(m)

• The GP run discovered

(1) the number of reflectors (one),
(2) the number of directors,
(3) the fact that the driven element, the directors, and the
reflector are all single straight wires,
(4) the fact that the driven element, the directors, and the
reflector are all arranged in parallel,
(5) the fact that the energy source (via the transmission
line) is connected only to single straight wire (the
driven element) ⎯ that is, all the directors and
reflectors are parasitically coupled

• Characteristics (3), (4), and (5) are essential characteristics

of the Yagi-Uda antenna, namely an antenna with multiple
parallel parasitically coupled straight-line directors, a single
parallel parasitically coupled straight-line reflector, and a
straight-line driven element.
 101

REUSE
LOWPASS FILTER USING ADFS

GENERATION 0 – ONE-RUNG LADDER

BEHAVIOR IN FREQUENCY DOMAIN

 102

REUSE
LOWPASS FILTER USING ADFS
GENERATION 9 - TWO-RUNG LADDER

TWICE-CALLED TWO-PORTED ADF0

BEHAVIOR IN FREQUENCY DOMAIN

 103

REUSE
LOWPASS FILTER USING ADFS
GEN 16 – THREE-RUNG LADDER

THRICE-CALLED TWO-PORTED ADF0

BEHAVIOR IN FREQUENCY DOMAIN

 104

REUSE
LOWPASS FILTER USING ADFS
GEN 20 – FOUR-RUNG LADDER

QUADRUPLY-CALLED TWO-PORTED
ADF0

BEHAVIOR IN FREQUENCY DOMAIN

 105

REUSE
LOWPASS FILTER USING ADFS
GENERATION 31 ⎯ TOPOLOGY OF
CAUER (ELLIPTIC) FILTER

QUINTUPLY-CALLED THREE-PORTED
ADF0

BEHAVIOR IN FREQUENCY DOMAIN

 106

PASSING A PARAMETER TO A
SUBSTRUCTURE
• The set of potential terminals for each construction-
continuing subtree of an automatically defined function,
Tccs-adf-potential, is
Tccs-adf-potential = {ARG0}

EMERGENCE OF A PARAMETERIZED
ARGUMENT IN A CIRCUIT
SUBSTRUCTURE
HIERARCHY OF BRANCHES FOR THE
BEST-OF-RUN CIRCUIT- FROM
GENERATION 158
execute

RPB0 RPB1 RPB2

ADF3 {1} ADF3 {1} ADF4 {1} ADF2 {1}

ADF2 {1} ADF2 {1} ADF2 {1}

 107

PASSING A PARAMETER TO A
SUBSTRUCTURE

BEST-OF-RUN CIRCUIT FROM

GENERATION 158
 108

THREE-PORTED AUTOMATICALLY
DEFINED FUNCTION ADF3 OF THE
BEST-OF-RUN CIRCUIT FROM
GENERATION 158

ADF3 CONTAINS CAPACITOR C39

PARAMETERIZED BY DUMMY
VARIABLE ARG0
 109

THE FIRST RESULT-PRODUCING

BRANCH, RPB0, CALLING ADF3
(PARALLEL0 (L (+ (– 1.883196E-01 (– -9.095883E-02 5.724576E-
01)) (– 9.737455E-01 -9.452780E-01)) (FLIP END)) (SERIES (C (+
(+ -6.668774E-01 -8.770285E-01) 4.587758E-02) (NOP END))
(SERIES END END (PARALLEL1 END END END END)) (FLIP
(SAFE_CUT))) (PAIR_CONNECT_0 END END END) (PAIR_CONNECT_0 (L
(+ -7.220122E-01 4.896697E-01) END) (L (– -7.195599E-01
3.651142E-02) (SERIES (C (+ -5.111248E-01 (– (– -6.137950E-01
-5.111248E-01) (– 1.883196E-01 (– -9.095883E-02 5.724576E-
01)))) END) (SERIES END END (adf3 6.196514E-01)) (NOP END)))
(NOP END)))

AUTOMATICALLY DEFINED FUNCTION

ADF3
(C (+ (– (+ (+ (+ 5.630820E-01 (– 9.737455E-01 -9.452780E-01))
(+ ARG0 6.953752E-02)) (– (– 5.627716E-02 (+ 2.273517E-01 (+
1.883196E-01 (+ 9.346950E-02 (+ -7.220122E-01 (+ 2.710414E-02
1.397491E-02)))))) (– (+ (– 2.710414E-02 -2.807583E-01) (+ -
6.137950E-01 -8.554120E-01)) (– -8.770285E-01 (– -4.049602E-01
-2.192044E-02))))) (+ (+ 1.883196E-01 (+ (+ (+ (+ 9.346950E-02
(+ -7.220122E-01 (+ 2.710414E-02 1.397491E-02))) (– 4.587758E-
02 -2.340137E-01)) 3.226026E-01) (+ -7.220122E-01 (– -
9.131658E-01 6.595502E-01)))) 3.660116E-01)) 9.496355E-01)
(THREE_GROUND_0 (C (+ (– (+ (+ (+ 5.630820E-01 (– 9.737455E-01
-9.452780E-01)) (+ (– (– -7.195599E-01 3.651142E-02) -
9.761651E-01) (– (+ (– (– -7.195599E-01 3.651142E-02) -
9.761651E-01) 6.953752E-02) 3.651142E-02))) (– (– 5.627716E-02
(– 1.883196E-01 (– -9.095883E-02 5.724576E-01))) (– (+ (–
2.710414E-02 -2.807583E-01) (+ -6.137950E-01 (+ ARG0
6.953752E-02))) (– -8.770285E-01 (– -4.049602E-01 -2.192044E-
02))))) (+ (+ 1.883196E-01 -7.195599E-01) 3.660116E-01))
9.496355E-01) (NOP (FLIP (PAIR_CONNECT_0 END END END)))) (FLIP
(SERIES (FLIP (FLIP (FLIP END))) (C (– (+ 6.238477E-01
6.196514E-01) (+ (+ (– (– 4.037348E-01 4.343444E-01) (+ -
7.788187E-01 (+ (+ (– -8.786904E-01 1.397491E-02) (– -
6.137950E-01 (– (+ (– 2.710414E-02 -2.807583E-01) (+ -
6.137950E-01 -8.554120E-01)) (– -8.770285E-01 (– -4.049602E-01
-2.192044E-02))))) (+ (+ 7.215142E-03 1.883196E-01) (+
7.733750E-01 4.343444E-01))))) (– (– -9.389297E-01 5.630820E-
01) (+ -5.840433E-02 3.568947E-01))) -8.554120E-01)) (NOP
END)) END)) (FLIP (adf2 9.737455E-01))))
 110

ADF3 DOES THREE THINGS

• The structure that develops out of ADF3 includes a
capacitor C112 whose value (5,130 uF) is not a function of
its dummy variable, ARG0.
• The structure that develops out of ADF3 has one
hierarchical reference to ADF2. As previously mentioned,
the invocation of ADF2 is done with a constant (9.737455E-
01) so this invocation of ADF2 produces a 259 µH inductor.
• Most importantly, the structure that develops out of ADF3
creates a capacitor (C39) whose sizing, F(ARG0), is a
function of the dummy variable, ARG0, of automatically
defined function ADF3. Capacitor C39 has different sizing
on different invocations of automatically defined function
ADF3.
• The combined effect of ADF3 is to insert the following
three components:
• an unparameterized 5,130 uF capacitor,
• a parameterized capacitor C39 whose component value
is dependent on ARG0 of ADF3, and
• a parameterized inductor (created by ADF2) whose
sizing is parameterized, but which, in practice, is called
with a constant value.
 111

EMERGENCE OF A PARAMETERIZED
ARGUMENT IN A CIRCUIT
SUBSTRUCTURE
HIERARCHY OF BRANCHES FOR THE
BEST-OF-RUN CIRCUIT- FROM
GENERATION 158
execute

RPB0 RPB1 RPB2

ADF3 {1} ADF3 {1} ADF4 {1} ADF2 {1}

ADF2 {1} ADF2 {1} ADF2 {1}

 112

FREE VARIABLE (INPUT) AND

CONDITIONALS

SOLVING A QUADRATIC EQUATION

USING THE GENETIC ALGORITHM
• Suppose we want the 2 roots of the quadratic equation

1x − 3x + 2 = 0
2

• Using the genetic algorithm (GA) operating on a fixed-

length character string, we can search a space of encodings
using an alphabet size of 2 (i.e., binary) of length, say, 16
representing two real numbers (each with, say, 4 bits to left
of the "decimal" point). After running the GA, a solution is

↓ | ↓
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1.0 2.0

• Alternatively, we could use a "floating point" genetic

algorithm (GA) to search a space of 2-part encodings. A
solution is
1.0 2.0
• In either case, the result is a solution to ONE INSTANCE
of the quadratic equation problem.
 113

SOLVING A QUADRATIC EQUATION

USING GENETIC PROGRAMMING (GP)
• Using genetic programming (GP), we can solve the general,
parameterized quadratic equation

ax + bx + c = 0
2

by searching the space of computer programs for a program

that takes a, b, and c as inputs

Input Program Output

Potential Potential Potential

Potential Internal
Subroutines Loops Recursions Storage

• The result is a solution to ALL INSTANCES of the

quadratic equation problem
 114

GENERAL APPEARANCE OF ONE

POSSIBLE CHROMOSOME ENCODING
USED TO SOLVE ONE INSTANCE OF A
CIRCUIT PROBLEM USING THE
GENETIC ALGORITHM (GA)
OPERATING ON FIXED-LENGTH
CHARACTER STRINGS

EXAMPLE CIRCUIT

1st Component | 2nd Component | 3rd Component | 4th Component

L .220 2 3 C 403. 3 6 L .528 6 9 L .041 9 0
 115

THE GENERAL APPEARANCE OF

EXPRESSIONS USED TO SOLVE ONE
INSTANCE OF A CIRCUIT PROBLEM
USING GENETIC PROGRAMMING (GP)
IN GENETIC PROGRAMMING III (1999)
1 LIST

2 C FLIP
3

– 4 SERIES 5 6 NOP

7
0.963 – 8 FLIP 9 SERIES 1 0 L 1 1 1 2 L

1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1
– 0.880 END FLIP L END – L -0.657 END
2 2

-0.875 -0.113 END -0.277 END -0.640 0.749 -0.123 END

2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1

(LIST (C (– 0.963 (– (– -0.875 -0.113) 0.880)) (series (flip

end) (series (flip end) (L -0.277 end) end) (L (– -0.640
0.749) (L -0.123 end)))) (flip (nop (L -0.657 end)))))

EXAMPLE CIRCUIT (GEN 0)

 116

VALUE-SETTING SUBTREES—3 WAYS

ARITHMETIC-PERFORMING SUBTREE
C

+ END

2.963 *

1.234 3.292

SINGLE PERTURBABLE CONSTANT

C

4.809 END

FREE VARIABLE
C

+ END

F *

1.234 3.292
 117

PARAMETERIZED TOPOLOGY FOR

"GENERALIZED" LOWPASS FILTER

VARIABLE CUTOFF LOWPASS FILTER

•Want lowpass filter whose passband ends at frequencies f =

1,000, 1,780, 3,160, 5,620, 10,000, 17,800, 31,600, 56,200,
100,000 Hz

L2 =
( )(
1.3406 × 10 −8 4. 7387 × 1012 + f 1. 3331× 10 16 + 9. 3714 × 105 f + f 2 )
+ ln f ≈
2. 4451× 10 8
+ ln f
(
f 3.4636 × 10 + f
12
) f

8.0198 × 10 7 L2 2.0262 × 10 8
L1 = L3 = + 2 ln f
f f

1. 3552 × 10 5
3. 7297 ×10 7 C3 =
L4 = f
f
1. 1056 × 10 5
C5 =
f

1. 6786 × 105 1. 6786 × 10 5 6.4484 × 10 5

C1 = C2 = C4 =
f f f
 118

PARAMETERIZED TOPOLOGY USING

CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTAL
OPERATORS (GENETIC SWITCH)

VARIABLE-CUTOFF
LOWPASS/HIGHPASS FILTER CIRCUIT
• Best-of-run circuit from generation 93 when inputs call for
a highpass filter (i.e., F1 > F2).
100 F 57 .2 F 49 .9 F 57 .2 F 49 .9 F 49 . 9 F
C1 = C2 = C3 = C4 = C5 = C6 =
F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1

56. 3H 56 . 3H 56 . 3H 56. 3H 56 . 3H 113 H

L1 = L2 = L3 = L4 = L5 = L6 =
F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1

• Best-of-run circuit from generation 93 when inputs call for

a lowpass filter.
113 H 218 H 218 H 218 H
L1 = L2 = L3 = L4 =
F1 F1 F1 F1

91 .7 F
C4 =
F1
183 F 219 F 219 F
C1 = C2 = C3 =
F1 F1 F1

58 . 9H
L5 =
F1
 119

PARALLELIZATION BY
SUBPOPULATIONS ("ISLAND" OR
"DEME" MODEL OR "DISTRIBUTED
GENETIC ALGORITHM")

MESH MESH MESH

CONTROL BOSS NODE NODE NODE
PARAMETER KEYBOARD (Tram)
FILE

HOST DEBUGGER
(Pentium PC) (optional) MESH MESH MESH
NODE NODE NODE

OUTPUT VIDEO
FILE DISPLAY
MESH MESH MESH
NODE NODE NODE

• Like Hormel, Get Everything Out of the Pig, Including the

Oink
• Keep on Trucking
• It Takes a Licking and Keeps on Ticking
• The Whole is Greater than the Sum of the Parts

PETA-OPS
• Human brain operates at 1012 neurons operating at 103
per second = 1015 ops per second
• 1015 ops = 1 peta-op = 1 bs (brain second)
 120

GENETIC PROGRAMMING OVER 15-

YEAR PERIOD 1987–2002
System Period Petacycles Speed-up Speed-up Human-
of (1015cycles) over over first competitive
usage per day for previous system in results
entire system this table
system
Serial 1987– 0.00216 1 (base) 1 (base) 0
Texas 1994
Instruments
LISP
machine
64-node 1994– 0.02 9 9 2
Transtech 1997
transputer
parallel
machine
64-node 1995– 0.44 22 204 12
Parsytec 2000
parallel
machine
70-node 1999– 3.2 7.3 1,481 2
Alpha 2001
parallel
machine
1,000-node 2000– 30.0 9.4 13,900 12
Pentium II 2002
parallel
machine
 121

PROGRESSION OF RESULTS
System Period Speed- Qualitative nature of the results produced
up by genetic programming
Serial LISP 1987– 1 (base) • Toy problems of the 1980s and early
machine 1994 1990s from the fields of artificial
intelligence and machine learning
64-node 1994– 9 •Two human-competitive results involving
Transtech 1997 one-dimensional discrete data (not patent-
8-biy related)
transputer
64-node 1995– 22 • One human-competitive result involving
Parsytec 2000 two-dimensional discrete data
parallel • Numerous human-competitive results
machine involving continuous signals analyzed in
the frequency domain
• Numerous human-competitive results
involving 20th-century patented inventions
70-node 1999– 7.3 • One human-competitive result involving
Alpha 2001 continuous signals analyzed in the time
parallel domain
machine • Circuit synthesis extended from topology
and sizing to include routing and
placement (layout)
1,000-node 2000– 9.4 • Numerous human-competitive results
Pentium II 2002 involving continuous signals analyzed in
parallel the time domain
machine • Numerous general solutions to problems
in the form of parameterized topologies
• Six human-competitive results
duplicating the functionality of 21st-
century patented inventions
Long (4- 2002 9.3 • Generation of two patentable new
week) runs inventions
of 1,000-
node
Pentium II
parallel
machine
 122

PROGRESSION OF QUALITATIVELY
MORE SUBSTANTIAL RESULTS
PRODUCED BY GENETIC
PROGRAMMING IN RELATION TO FIVE
ORDER-OF-MAGNITUDE INCREASES IN
COMPUTATIONAL POWER

• toy problems

• human-competitive results not related to

patented inventions

• 20th-century patented inventions

• 21st-century patented inventions

• patentable new inventions

 123

EVOLVABLE HARDWARE

RAPIDLY RECONFIGURABLE FIELD-

PROGRAMMABLE GATE ARRAYS
(FPGAs)

SMALL 5 BY 5 CORNER OF XILINX

XC6216 FPGA
 124

EVOLVABLE HARDWARE

RAPIDLY RECONFIGURABLE FIELD-

PROGRAMMABLE GATE ARRAYS
(FPGAs)

SORTING NETWORKS

• A 16-step 7-sorter was evolved that has two fewer steps

than the sorting network described in O'Connor and
Nelsons' patent (1962) and that has the same number of
steps as the 7-sorter that was devised by Floyd and Knuth
subsequent to the patent and described in Knuth 1973.

GENETICALLY EVOLVED 7-SORTER

 125

FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN GP AND OTHER
APPROACHES TO AI AND ML
(1) Representation: Genetic programming overtly conducts
it search for a solution to the given problem in program
space.
(2) Role of point-to-point transformations in the search:
Genetic programming does not conduct its search by
transforming a single point in the search space into another
single point, but instead transforms a set of points into
another set of points.
(3) Role of hill climbing in the search: Genetic
programming does not rely exclusively on greedy hill
climbing to conduct its search, but instead allocates a certain
number of trials, in a principled way, to choices that are
known to be inferior.
(4) Role of determinism in the search: Genetic
programming conducts its search probabilistically.
(5) Role of an explicit knowledge base: None.
(6) Role of formal logic in the search: None.
(7) Underpinnings of the technique: Biologically inspired.
 126

EIGHT CRITERIA FOR HUMAN-

COMPETITIVENESS
Criterion
A The result was patented as an invention in the past, is an improvement over a patented invention, or
would qualify today as a patentable new invention.
B The result is equal to or better than a result that was accepted as a new scientific result at the time when
it was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
C The result is equal to or better than a result that was placed into a database or archive of results
maintained by an internationally recognized panel of scientific experts.
D The result is publishable in its own right as a new scientific result⎯independent of the fact that the
result was mechanically created.
E The result is equal to or better than the most recent human-created solution to a long-standing problem
for which there has been a succession of increasingly better human-created solutions.
F The result is equal to or better than a result that was considered an achievement in its field at the time it
was first discovered.
G The result solves a problem of indisputable difficulty in its field.
H The result holds its own or wins a regulated competition involving human contestants (in the form of
either live human players or human-written computer programs).
 127

37 HUMAN-COMPETITIVE RESULTS
(LIST AS OF APRIL 2004)
Claimed instance Basis for claim Reference
of human-
competitiveness
1 Creation of a better-than-classical quantum B, F Spector, Barnum, and
algorithm for the Deutsch-Jozsa “early Bernstein 1998
promise” problem
2 Creation of a better-than-classical quantum B, F Spector, Barnum, and
algorithm for Grover’s database search Bernstein 1999
problem
3 Creation of a quantum algorithm for the depth- D Spector, Barnum, Bernstein,
two AND/OR query problem that is better than and Swamy 1999; Barnum,
any previously published result Bernstein, and Spector 2000
4 Creation of a quantum algorithm for the depth- D Barnum, Bernstein, and
one OR query problem that is better than any Spector 2000
previously published result
5 Creation of a protocol for communicating D Spector and Bernstein 2003
information through a quantum gate that was
previously thought not to permit such
communication
6 Creation of a novel variant of quantum dense D Spector and Bernstein 2003
coding
7 Creation of a soccer-playing program that won H Luke 1998
its first two games in the Robo Cup 1997
competition
8 Creation of a soccer-playing program that H Andre and Teller 1999
ranked in the middle of the field of 34 human-
written programs in the Robo Cup 1998
competition
9 Creation of four different algorithms for the B, E Sections 18.8 and 18.10 of GP-
transmembrane segment identification problem 2 book and sections 16.5 and
for proteins 17.2 of GP-3 book
10 Creation of a sorting network for seven items A, D Sections 21.4.4, 23.6, and
using only 16 steps 57.8.1 of GP-3 book
11 Rediscovery of the Campbell ladder topology A, F Section 25.15.1 of GP-3 book
for lowpass and highpass filters and section 5.2 of GP-4 book
12 Rediscovery of the Zobel “M-derived half A, F Section 25.15.2 of GP-3 book
section” and “constant K” filter sections
13 Rediscovery of the Cauer (elliptic) topology for A, F Section 27.3.7 of GP-3 book
filters
14 Automatic decomposition of the problem of A, F Section 32.3 of GP-3 book
synthesizing a crossover filter
15 Rediscovery of a recognizable voltage gain A, F Section 42.3 of GP-3 book
stage and a Darlington emitter-follower section
of an amplifier and other circuits
16 Synthesis of 60 and 96 decibel amplifiers A, F Section 45.3 of GP-3 book
17 Synthesis of analog computational circuits for A, D, G Section 47.5.3 of GP-3 book
squaring, cubing, square root, cube root,
logarithm, and Gaussian functions
18 Synthesis of a real-time analog circuit for time- G Section 48.3 of GP-3 book
optimal control of a robot
 128

19 Synthesis of an electronic thermometer A, G Section 49.3 of GP-3 book

20 Synthesis of a voltage reference circuit A, G Section 50.3 of GP-3 book
21 Creation of a cellular automata rule for the D, E Andre, Bennett, and Koza
majority classification problem that is better 1996 and section 58.4 of GP-3
than the Gacs-Kurdyumov-Levin (GKL) rule book
and all other known rules written by humans
22 Creation of motifs that detect the D–E–A–D C Section 59.8 of GP-3 book
box family of proteins and the manganese
superoxide dismutase family
23 Synthesis of topology for a PID-D2 A, F Section 3.7 of GP-4 book
(proportional, integrative, derivative, and
second derivative) controller
24 Synthesis of an analog circuit equivalent to A, F Section 4.3 of GP-4 book
Philbrick circuit
25 Synthesis of a NAND circuit A, F Section 4.4 of GP-4 book
26 Simultaneous synthesis of topology, sizing, A. F, G Chapter 5 of GP-4 book
placement, and routing of analog electrical
circuits
27 Synthesis of topology for a PID (proportional, A, F Section 9.2 of GP-4 book
integrative, and derivative) controller
28 Rediscovery of negative feedback A, E, F, G Chapter 14 of GP-4 book
29 Synthesis of a low-voltage balun circuit A Section 15.4.1 of GP-4 book
30 Synthesis of a mixed analog-digital variable Section 15.4.2 of GP-4 book
capacitor circuit A
31 Synthesis of a high-current load circuit A Section 15.4.3 of GP-4 book
32 Synthesis of a voltage-current conversion Section 15.4.4 of GP-4 book
circuit A
33 Synthesis of a Cubic function generator A Section 15.4.5 of GP-4 book
34 Synthesis of a tunable integrated active filter A Section 15.4.6 of GP-4 book
35 Creation of PID tuning rules that outperform A, B, D, E, F, G Chapter 12 of GP-4 book
the Ziegler-Nichols and Åström-Hägglund
tuning rules
36 Creation of three non-PID controllers that A, B, D, E, F, G Chapter 13 of GP-4 book
outperform a PID controller that uses the
Ziegler-Nichols or Åström-Hägglund tuning
rules
37 X-Band Antenna for NASA's Space Technology B, D, E, G Lohn, Hornby, Kraus, Linden,
5 Mission Rodriguez, and Seufert 2003
 129

PROMISING GP APPLICATION AREAS

• Problem areas involving many variables that are

interrelated in highly non-linear ways
• Inter-relationship of variables is not well understood
• A good approximate solution is satisfactory
• design
• control
• classification and pattern recognition
• data mining
• system identification and forecasting
• Discovery of the size and shape of the solution is a major
part of the problem
• Areas where humans find it difficult to write programs
• parallel computers
• cellular automata
• multi-agent strategies / distributed AI
• FPGAs
• "black art" problems
• synthesis of topology and sizing of analog circuits
• synthesis of topology and tuning of controllers
• quantum computing circuits
• synthesis of designs for antennas
• Areas where you simply have no idea how to program a
solution, but where the objective (fitness measure) is clear
• Problem areas where large computerized databases are
accumulating and computerized techniques are needed to
analyze the data
 130

TURING'S THREE APPROACHES TO

MACHINE INTELLIGENCE

• Turing made the connection between searches and the

challenge of getting a computer to solve a problem without
explicitly programming it in his 1948 essay "Intelligent
Machines" (in Mechanical Intelligence: Collected Works of A.
M. Turing, 1992, edited by D. C. Ince).

"Further research into intelligence of machinery will

probably be very greatly concerned with 'searches' ...
"

TURING'S THREE APPROACHES TO

MACHINE INTELLIGENCE ⎯
CONTINUED

1. LOGIC-BASED SEARCH
One approach that Turing identified is a search through the
space of integers representing candidate computer
programs.

2. CULTURAL SEARCH
Another approach is the "cultural search" which relies on
knowledge and expertise acquired over a period of years
from others (akin to present-day knowledge-based systems).
 131

TURING'S THREE APPROACHES TO

MACHINE INTELLIGENCE ⎯
CONTINUED

3. GENETICAL OR EVOLUTIONARY
SEARCH
"There is the genetical or evolutionary search by
which a combination of genes is looked for, the
criterion being the survival value."

• from Turing’s 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and

Intelligence" …
"We cannot expect to find a good child-machine at
the first attempt. One must experiment with
teaching one such machine and see how well it learns.
One can then try another and see if it is better or
worse. There is an obvious connection between this
process and evolution, by the identifications"

"Structure of the child machine = Hereditary

material"

"Changes of the child machine = Mutations"

"Natural selection = Judgment of the experimenter"

 132

17 AUTHORED BOOKS ON GP
Banzhaf, Wolfgang, Nordin, Peter, Keller, Robert E., and Francone, Frank D. 1998.
Genetic Programming - An Introduction. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufman
Publishers and Heidelberg, Germany: dpunkt.verlag.
Babovic, Vladan. 1996b. Emergence, Evolution, Intelligence: Hydroinformatics. Rotterdam,
The Netherlands: Balkema Publishers.
Blickle, Tobias. 1997. Theory of Evolutionary Algorithms and Application to System
Synthesis. TIK-Schriftenreihe Nr. 17. Zurich, Switzerland: vdf Hochschul Verlag AG
and der ETH Zurich. ISBN 3-7281-2433-8.
Jacob, Christian. 1997. Principia Evolvica: Simulierte Evolution mit Mathematica.
Heidelberg, Germany: dpunkt.verlag. In German. English translation forthcoming in
2000 from Morgan Kaufman Publishers.
Jacob, Christian. 2001. Illustrating Evolutionary Computation with Mathematica. San
Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Iba, Hitoshi. 1996. Genetic Programming. Tokyo: Tokyo Denki University Press. In
Japanese.
Koza, John R. 1992. Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of
Natural Selection. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Koza, John R. 1994a. Genetic Programming II: Automatic Discovery of Reusable Programs.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
Koza, John R., Bennett III, Forrest H, Andre, David, and Keane, Martin A. 1999a. Genetic
Programming III: Darwinian Invention and Problem Solving. San Francisco, CA:
Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Koza, John R., Keane, Martin A., Streeter, Matthew J., Mydlowec, William, Yu, Jessen,
and Lanza, Guido. 2003. Genetic Programming IV. Routine Human-Competitive
Machine Intelligence. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Langdon, William B. 1998. Genetic Programming and Data Structures: Genetic Programming
+ Data Structures = Automatic Programming! Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Langdon, William B. and Poli, Riccardo. 2002. Foundations of Genetic Programming.
Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Nordin, Peter. 1997. Evolutionary Program Induction of Binary Machine Code and its
Application. Munster, Germany: Krehl Verlag.
O’Neill, Michael and Ryan, Conor. 2003. Grammatical Evolution: Evolutionary Automatic
Programming in an Arbitrary Language. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ryan, Conor. 1999. Automatic Re-engineering of Software Using Genetic Programming.
Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Spector, Lee. 2004. Automatic Quantum Computer Programming: A Genetic Programming
Approach. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wong, Man Leung and Leung, Kwong Sak. 2000. Data Mining Using Grammar Based
Genetic Programming and Applications. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
 133

MAIN POINTS OF JAWS-1,2,3,4 BOOKS

Book Main Points
1992 • Virtually all problems in artificial intelligence, machine
learning, adaptive systems, and automated learning can be
recast as a search for a computer program.
• Genetic programming provides a way to successfully conduct
the search for a computer program in the space of computer
programs.
1994 • Scalability is essential for solving non-trivial problems in
artificial intelligence, machine learning, adaptive systems, and
automated learning.
• Scalability can be achieved by reuse.
• Genetic programming provides a way to automatically
discover and reuse subprograms in the course of automatically
creating computer programs to solve problems.
1999 • Genetic programming possesses the attributes that can
reasonably be expected of a system for automatically creating
computer programs.
2003 • Genetic programming now routinely delivers high-return
human-competitive machine intelligence.
• Genetic programming is an automated invention machine.
• Genetic programming can automatically create a general
solution to a problem in the form of a parameterized topology.
• Genetic programming has delivered a progression of
qualitatively more substantial results in synchrony with five
approximately order-of-magnitude increases in the expenditure
of computer time.
 134

SOME RECENT CONFERENCE

PROCEEDINGS
Banzhaf, Wolfgang, Daida, Jason, Eiben, A. E., Garzon, Max H., Honavar, Vasant, Jakiela,
Mark, and Smith, Robert E. (editors). 1999. GECCO-99: Proceedings of the Genetic
and Evolutionary Computation Conference, July 13-17, 1999, Orlando, Florida USA.
San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Banzhaf, Wolfgang, Poli, Riccardo, Schoenauer, Marc, and Fogarty, Terence C. 1998.
Genetic Programming: First European Workshop. EuroGP'98. Paris, France. Lecture
Notes in Computer Science. Volume 1391. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Koza, John R., Goldberg, David E., Fogel, David B., and Riolo, Rick L. (editors). 1996.
Genetic Programming 1996: Proceedings of the First Annual Conference. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
Foster, James A., Lutton, Evelyne, Miller, Julian, Ryan, Conor, and Tettamanzi, Andrea
G. B. (editors). 2002. Genetic Programming: 5th European Conference, EuroGP 2002,
Kinsale, Ireland, April 2002 Proceedings. Berlin: Springer.
Koza, John R., Deb, Kalyanmoy, Dorigo, Marco, Fogel, David B., Garzon, Max, Iba,
Hitoshi, and Riolo, Rick L. (editors). 1997. Genetic Programming 1997: Proceedings of
the Second Annual Conference. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Koza, John R., Banzhaf, Wolfgang, Chellapilla, Kumar, Deb, Kalyanmoy, Dorigo, Marco,
Fogel, David B., Garzon, Max H., Goldberg, David E., Iba, Hitoshi, and Riolo, Rick.
(editors). 1998. Genetic Programming 1998: Proceedings of the Third Annual
Conference. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Miller, Julian, Tomassini, Marco, Lanzi, Pier Luca, Ryan, Conor, Tettamanzi, Andrea G.
B., and Langdon, William B. (editors). 2001. Genetic Programming: 4th European
Conference, EuroGP 2001, Lake Como, Italy, April 2001 Proceedings. Berlin: Springer.
Poli, Riccardo, Nordin, Peter, Langdon, William B., and Fogarty, Terence C. 1999. Genetic
Programming: Second European Workshop. EuroGP'99. Goteborg, Sweden, May 1999.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Volume 1598. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Poli, Riccardo, Banzhaf, Wolfgang, Langdon, William B., Miller, Julian, Nordin, Peter,
and Fogarty, Terence C. 2000. Genetic Programming: European Conference, EuroGP
2000, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, April 2000, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science. Volume 1802. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 3-540-67339-3.
Riolo, Rich and Worzel, William. 2003. Genetic Programming: Theory and Practice. Boston:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Spector, Lee, Goodman, E., Wu, A., Langdon, William B., Voigt, H.-M., Gen, M., Sen, S.,
Dorigo, Marco, Pezeshk, S., Garzon, Max, and Burke, E. (editors). 2001. Proceedings
of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-2001. San
Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Pages 57 - 65. Whitley, Darrell,
Goldberg, David, Cantu-Paz, Erick, Spector, Lee, Parmee, Ian, and Beyer, Hans-
Georg (editors). GECCO-2000: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary
Computation Conference, July 10 - 12, 2000, Las Vegas, Nevada. San Francisco:
Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
 135

3 EDITED ADVANCES IN GENETIC

PROGRAMMING BOOKS
Angeline, Peter J. and Kinnear, Kenneth E. Jr. (editors). 1996. Advances in
Genetic Programming 2. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kinnear, Kenneth E. Jr. (editor). 1994. Advances in Genetic Programming.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Spector, Lee, Langdon, William B., O'Reilly, Una-May, and Angeline, Peter
(editors). 1999. Advances in Genetic Programming 3. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.

4 VIDEOTAPES ON GP
Koza, John R., and Rice, James P. 1992. Genetic Programming: The Movie.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Koza, John R. 1994b. Genetic Programming II Videotape: The Next Generation.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Koza, John R., Bennett III, Forrest H, Andre, David, Keane, Martin A., and
Brave, Scott. 1999. Genetic Programming III Videotape: Human-
Competitive Machine Intelligence. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann
Publishers.
Koza, John R., Keane, Martin A., Streeter, Matthew J., Mydlowec, William,
Yu, Jessen, Lanza, Guido, and Fletcher, David. 2003. Genetic
Programming IV Video: Routine Human-Competitive Machine
Intelligence. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
 136

WILLIAM LANGDON’S BIBLIOGRAPHY

ON GENETIC PROGRAMMING
This bibliography is the most extensive in the field and
contains over 3,034 papers (as of January 2003) by over 880
authors.

Visit
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~wbl/biblio/
or
http://liinwww.ira.uka.de/bibliography/Ai/g
enetic.programming.html

GENETIC PROGRAMMING AND

EVOLVABLE MACHINES JOURNAL
FROM KLUWER ACADEMIC
PUBLISHERS
Editor: Wolfgang Banzhaf

GENETIC PROGRAMMING BOOK SERIES

FROM KLUWER ACADEMIC
PUBLISHERS
Editor: John Koza
koza@stanford.edu
 137

GP MAILING LIST
To subscribe to the Genetic Programming e-mail list,
• send e-mail message to:
genetic_programming-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
• visit the web page
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genetic_programming/

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR

GENETIC AND EVOLUTIONARY
COMPUTATION (ISGEC)
For information on ISGEC, the annual GECCO conference,
or the bi-annual FOGA workshop, visit
www.isgec.org

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON

THE GP FIELD
Visit
http://www.genetic-programming.org
for
• links computer code in various programming languages
(including C, C++, Java, Mathematica, LISP)
• partial list of people active in genetic programming
• list of known completed PhD theses on GP
• list of students known to be working on PhD theses on GP
• information for instructors of university courses on genetic
algorithms and genetic programming