Finding needles in haystacks is harder with neutrality

GECCO 2005 - Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 1613-1618

  Collins, M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cartesian Genetic Programming; Reduced Boolean Parity; Search Space

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; BOOLEAN ALGEBRA; COMPUTATION THEORY; PROBLEM SOLVING;

CARTESIAN GENETIC PROGRAMMING (CGP); REDUCED BOOLEAN PARITY; SEARCH SPACES;

MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING;

EID: 32444442481     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1068009.1068282     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (8)

1. M. Collins. Counting Solutions in Reduced Boolean Parity 2004. GECCO 2004.
2. M. Collins. Monte Carlo Sampling and Counting Solutions in Reduced Boolean Parity 2004.EDI-INF-RR-0240. http://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/publications/report/
3. W. Langdon. R. Poli. Boolean Functions Fitness Spaces 1997. University of Birmingham Technical Report CSRP-98-16.
4. J. Miller. An empirical study of the efficiency of learning boolean functions using a Cartesian Genetic Program ming approach R. Poli et al (Eds.) Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Genetic Programming. 2000. pp. 121-132.
5. J. Miller. Cartesian Genetic Programming R. poli et al (Eds.) Genetic Programming, Proceedings of EuroGP'2000
6. J. Miller. What Bloat? Cartesian Genetic Programming on Boolean problems E. Goodman (Ed.) 2001 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Late Breaking Papers, pp 295-302.
7. T. Yu. J. Miller. Finding Needles in Haystacks Is Not Hard with Neutrality J. Foster et al (Eds.) EuroGP 2002, LNCS 2278, pp. 13-25.
8. T. Yu. J. Miller. Neutrality and the Evolvabilty of Boolean Function Landscapes Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Genetic Programming. 2001.