Page 90 - 49A Field Guide to Genetic Programming
P. 90

76                              9 Multi-objective Genetic Programming


                                                                P
            example, one could use a linear combination of the form f =  w i f i , where
                                                                  i
            the parameters w 1 , w 2 , . . . are suitable constants. A MOO problem can then
            be solved by using any single-objective optimisation technique with f as a
            fitness function. This method has been used frequently in GP to control
            bloat. By combining program fitness and program size to form a parsimo-
            nious fitness function one can evolve solutions that satisfy both objectives
            (see Koza (1992); Zhang and M¨uhlenbein (1993, 1995); Zhang, Ohm, and
            M¨uhlenbein (1997) and Section 11.3.2).
               A semi-linear aggregation of fitness and speed was used in (Langdon
            and Poli, 1998b) to improve the performance of GP on the Santa Fe Trail
            Ant problem. There, a threshold was used to limit the impact of speed to
            avoid providing an excessive bias towards ants that were fast but could not
            complete the trail.
               A fitness measure which linearly combines two related objectives, the
            sum of squared errors and the number of hits (a hit is a fitness case in which
            the error falls below a pre-defined threshold), was used in (Langdon, Barrett,
            and Buxton, 2003) to predict biochemical interactions in drug discovery.
               Zhang and Bhowan (2004) used a MO GP approach for object detection.
            Their fitness function was a linear combination of the detection rate (the
            percentage of small objects correctly reported), the false alarm rate (the
            percentage of non-objects incorrectly reported as objects), and the false
            alarm area (the number of false alarm pixels which were not object centres
            but were incorrectly reported as object centres).
               O’Reilly and Hemberg (2007) used six objectives for the evolution of
            L-systems which developed into 3-D surfaces in response to a simulated
            environment. The objectives included the size of the surface, its smoothness,
            its symmetry, its undulation, the degree of subdivision of the surface, and
            the softness of its boundaries.
               (Koza, Jones, Keane, and Streeter, 2004) used 16 different objectives
            in the process of designing analogue electrical circuits. In the case of an
            amplifier circuit these included: the 10dB initial gain, the supply current, the
            offset voltage, the gain ratio, the output swing, the variable load resistance
            signal output, etc. These objectives were combined in a complex heuristic
            way into a scalar fitness measure. In particular, objectives were divided
            into groups and many objectives were treated as penalties that were applied
            to the main fitness components only if they are outside certain acceptable
            tolerances.


            9.2    Keeping the Objectives Separate

            Since selection does not depend upon how the members of the population
            are represented, the MOO techniques developed for other evolutionary al-
            gorithms can be easily adapted to GP.
   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95