Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1132731. 	[Title] Go and Genetic Programming Playing Go with Filter Functions [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1131360. 	[Title] Solving Combinatorial Problems Using Evolutionary Algorithms [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #646913. 	[Title] Graph Coloring with Adaptive Evolutionary Algorithms [Abstract] This paper presents the results of an experimental investigation on solving graph coloring problems with Evolutionary Algorithms (EA). After testing different algorithm variants we conclude that the best option is an asexual EA using order-based representation and an adaptation mechanism that periodically changes the fitness function during the evolution. This adaptive EA is general, using no domain specific knowledge, except, of course, from the decoder (fitness function). We compare this adaptive EA to a powerful traditional graph coloring technique DSatur and the Grouping GA on a wide range of problem instances with different size, topology and edge density. The results show that the adaptive EA is superior to the Grouping GA and outperforms DSatur on the hardest problem instances. Furthermore, it scales up better with the problem size than the other two algorithms and indicates a linear computational complexity. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1129570. 	[Title] Automatic Modularization by Speciation [Abstract] Real-world problems are often too difficult to be solved by a single monolithic system. There are many examples of natural and artificial systems which show that a modular approach can reduce the total complexity of the system while solving a difficult problem satisfactorily. The success of modular artificial neural networks in speech and image processing is a typical example. However, designing a modular system is a difficult task. It relies heavily on human experts and prior knowledge about the problem. There is no systematic and automatic way to form a modular system for a problem. This paper proposes a novel evolutionary learning approach to designing a modular system automatically, without human intervention. Our starting point is speciation, using a technique based on fitness sharing. While speciation in genetic algorithms is not new, no effort has been made towards using a speciated population as a complete modular system. We harness the specialized expertise in the species of an entire population, rather than a single individual, by introducing a gating algorithm. We demonstrate our approach to automatic modularization by improving co-evolutionary game learning. Following earlier researchers, we learn to play iterated prisoner's dilemma. We review some problems of earlier co-evolutionary learning, and explain their poor generalization ability and sudden mass extinctions. The generalization ability of our approach is significantly better than past efforts. Using the specialized expertise of the entire speciated population though a gating algorithm, instead of the best individual, is the main contributor to this improvement. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1152676. 	[Title]  [Abstract] Evolving Cooperative Groups: Preliminary Results Abstract Multi-agent systems require coordination of sources with distinct expertise to perform complex tasks effectively. In this paper, we use co-evolutionary approach using genetic algorithms to evolve multiple individuals who can effectively cooperate to solve a common problem. We concurrently run a GA for each individual in the group. In this paper, we experiment with a room painting domain which requires cooperation of two agents. We have used two mechanisms for evaluating an individual in one population: (a) pair it randomly with members from the other population, (b) pair it with members of the other population in a shared memory containing the best pairs found so far. Both the approaches are successful in generating optimal behavior patterns. However, our preliminary results exhibit a slight edge for the shared memory approach. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #593060. 	[Title] 17 Massively Parallel Genetic Programming [Abstract] As the field of Genetic Programming (GP) matures and its breadth of application increases, the need for parallel implementations becomes absolutely necessary. The transputer-based system presented in the chapter by Koza and Andre ([11]) is one of the rare such parallel implementations. Until today, no implementation has been proposed for parallel GP using a SIMD architecture, except for a data-parallel approach ([20]), although others have exploited workstation farms and pipelined supercomputers. One reason is certainly the apparent difficulty of dealing with the parallel evaluation of different S-expressions when only a single instruction can be executed at the same time on every processor. The aim of this chapter is to present such an implementation of parallel GP on a SIMD system, where each processor can efficiently evaluate a different S-expression. We have implemented this approach on a MasPar MP-2 computer, and will present some timing results. To the extent that SIMD machines, like the MasPar are available to offer cost-effective cycles for scientific experimentation, this is a useful approach. The idea of simulating a MIMD machine using a SIMD architecture is not new ([8, 15]). One of the original ideas for the Connection Machine ([8]) was that it could simulate other parallel architectures. Indeed, in the extreme, each processor on a SIMD architecture can simulate a universal Turing machine (TM). With different turing machine specifications stored in each local memory, each processor would simply have its own tape, tape head, state table and state pointer, and the simulation would be performed by repeating the basic TM operations simultaneously. Of course, such a simulation would be very inefficient, and difficult to program, but would have the advantage of being really MIMD, where no SIMD processor would be in idle state, until its simulated machine halts. Now let us consider an alternative idea, that each SIMD processor would simulate an individual stored program computer using a simple instruction set. For each step of the simulation, the SIMD system would sequentially execute each possible instruction on the subset of processors whose next instruction match it. For a typical assembly language, even with a reduced instruction set, most processors would be idle most of the time. However, if the set of instructions implemented on the virtual processor is very small, this approach can be fruitful. In the case of Genetic Programming, the "instruction set" is composed of the specified set of functions designed for the task. We will show below that with a precompilation step, simply adding a push, a conditional, and unconditional branching and a stop instruction, we can get a very effective MIMD simulation running. This chapter reports such an implementation of GP on a MasPar MP-2 parallel computer. The configuration of our system is composed of 4K processor elements Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #28456. 	[Title] A Competitive Approach to Game Learning [Abstract] Machine learning of game strategies has often depended on competitive methods that continually develop new strategies capable of defeating previous ones. We use a very inclusive definition of game and consider a framework within which a competitive algorithm makes repeated use of a strategy learning component that can learn strategies which defeat a given set of opponents. We describe game learning in terms of sets H and X of first and second player strategies, and connect the model with more familiar models of concept learning. We show the importance of the ideas of teaching set [20] and specification number [19] k in this new context. The performance of several competitive algorithms is investigated, using both worst-case and randomized strategy learning algorithms. Our central result (Theorem 4) is a competitive algorithm that solves games in a total number of strategies polynomial in lg(jHj), lg(jX j), and k. Its use is demonstrated, including an application in concept learning with a new kind of counterexample oracle. We conclude with a complexity analysis of game learning, and list a number of new questions arising from this work. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #592975. 	[Title] Tackling the Boolean Even N Parity Problem with Genetic Programming and Limited-Error Fitness standard GP [Abstract] This paper presents Limited Error Fitness (LEF), a modification to the standard supervised learning approach in Genetic Programming (GP), in which an individual's fitness score is based on how many cases remain uncovered in the ordered training set after the individual exceeds an error limit. The training set order and the error limit are both altered dynamically in response to the performance of the fittest individual in the previous generation. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #595056. 	[Title] Using Genetic Programming to Evolve Board Evaluation Functions [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #647408. 	[Title] Every Niching Method has its Niche: Fitness Sharing and Implicit Sharing Compared [Abstract] Various extensions to the Genetic Algorithm (GA) attempt to find all or most optima in a search space containing several optima. Many of these emulate natural speciation. For co-evolutionary learning to succeed in a range of management and control problems, such as learning game strategies, such methods must find all or most optima. However, suitable comparison studies are rare. We compare two similar GA specia-tion methods, fitness sharing and implicit sharing. Using a realistic letter classification problem, we find they have advantages under different circumstances. Implicit sharing covers optima more comprehensively, when the population is large enough for a species to form at each optimum. With a population not large enough to do this, fitness sharing can find the optima with larger basins of attraction, and ignore the peaks with narrow bases, while implicit sharing is more easily distracted. This indicates that for a speciated GA trying to find as many near-global optima as possible, implicit sharing works well only if the population is large enough. This requires prior knowledge of how many peaks exist. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #646900. 	[Title] Evaluating and Improving Steady State Evolutionary Algorithms on Constraint Satisfaction Problems [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1153942. 	[Title]  [Abstract] As the field of Genetic Programming (GP) matures and its breadth of application increases, the need for parallel implementations becomes absolutely necessary. The transputer-based system presented in [Koza and Andre 1995] is one of the rare such parallel implementations. Until today, no implementation has been proposed for parallel GP using a SIMD architecture, except for a data-parallel approach [Tufts 1995], although others have exploited workstation farms and pipelined supercomputers. One reason is certainly the apparent difficulty of dealing with the parallel evaluation of different S-expressions when only a single instruction can be executed at the same time on every processor. The aim of this chapter is to present such an implementation of parallel GP on a SIMD system, where each processor can efficiently evaluate a different S-expression. We have implemented this approach on a MasPar MP-2 computer, and will present some timing results. To the extent that SIMD machines, like the MasPar are available to offer cost-effective cycles for scientific experimentation, this is a useful approach. The idea of simulating a MIMD machine using a SIMD architecture is not new [Hillis and Steele 1986; Littman and Metcalf 1990; Dietz and Cohen 1992]. One of the original ideas for the Connection Machine [Hillis and Steele 1986] was that it could simulate other parallel architectures. Indeed, in the extreme, each processor on a SIMD architecture can simulate a universal Turing machine (TM). With different turing machine specifications stored in each local memory, each processor would simply have its own tape, tape head, state table and state pointer, and the simulation would be performed by repeating the basic TM operations simultaneously. Of course, such a simulation would be very inefficient, and difficult to program, but would have the advantage of being really MIMD, where no SIMD processor would be in idle state, until its simulated machine halts. Now let us consider an alternative idea, that each SIMD processor would simulate an individual stored program computer using a simple instruction set. For each step of the simulation, the SIMD system would sequentially execute each possible instruction on the subset of processors whose next instruction match it. For a typical assembly language, even with a reduced instruction set, most processors would be idle most of the time. However, if the set of instructions implemented on the virtual processor is very small, this approach can be fruitful. In the case of Genetic Programming, the "instruction set" is composed of the specified set of functions designed for the task. We will show below that with a precompilation step, simply adding a push, a conditional, and unconditional branching and a stop instruction, we can get a very effective MIMD simulation running. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #606647. 	[Title] Dynamics of Co-evolutionary Learning [Abstract] Co-evolutionary learning, which involves the embedding of adaptive learning agents in a fitness environment which dynamically responds to their progress, is a potential solution for many technological chicken and egg problems, and is at the heart of several recent and surprising successes, such as Sim's artificial robot and Tesauro's backgammon player. We recently solved the two spirals problem, a difficult neural network benchmark classification problem, using the genetic programming primitives set up by [Koza, 1992]. Instead of using absolute fitness, we use a relative fitness [Angeline & Pollack, 1993] based on a competition for coverage of the data set. As the population reproduces, the fitness function driving the selection changes, and subproblem niches are opened, rather than crowded out. The solutions found by our method have a symbiotic structure which suggests that by holding niches open, crossover is better able to discover modular build ing blocks. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1131359. 	[Title] Comparison of the SAW-ing Evolutionary Algorithm and the Grouping Genetic Algorithm for Graph Coloring 1 [Abstract] 1 This report is also available through http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~gusz/ sawvsgga.ps.gz Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #592986. 	[Title] Small Populations over Many Generations can beat Large Populations over Few Generations in Genetic Programming [Abstract] This paper looks at the use of small populations in Genetic Programming (GP), where the trend in the literature appears to be towards using as large a population as possible, which requires more memory resources and CPU-usage is less efficient. Dynamic Subset Selection (DSS) and Limited Error Fitness (LEF) are two different, adaptive variations of the standard supervised learning method used in GP. This paper compares the performance of GP, GP+DSS, and GP+LEF, on a 958 case classification problem, using a small population size of 50. A similar comparison between GP and GP+DSS is done on a larger and messier 3772 case classification problem. For both problems, GP+DSS with the small population size consistently produces a better answer using fewer tree evaluations than other runs using much larger populations. Even standard GP can be seen to perform well with the much smaller population size, indicating that it is certainly worth an exploratory run or three with a small population size before assuming that a large population size is necessary. It is an interesting notion that smaller can mean faster and better. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #57119. 	[Title] New Methods for Competitive Coevolution [Abstract] We consider "competitive coevolution," in which fitness is based on direct competition among individuals selected from two independently evolving populations of "hosts" and "parasites." Competitive coevolution can lead to an "arms race," in which the two populations reciprocally drive one another to increasing levels of performance and complexity. We use the games of Nim and 3-D Tic-Tac-Toe as test problems to explore three new techniques in competitive coevolution. "Competitive fitness sharing" changes the way fitness is measured, "shared sampling" provides a method for selecting a strong, diverse set of parasites, and the "hall of fame" encourages arms races by saving good individuals from prior generations. We provide several different motivations for these methods, and mathematical insights into their use. Experimental comparisons are done, and a detailed analysis of these experiments is presented in terms of testing issues, diversity, extinction, arms race progress measurements, and drift. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #1132731 has the title `Go and Genetic Programming Playing Go with Filter Functions  
` and the abstract `nan`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1132731 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #1132731 has the title `Go and Genetic Programming Playing Go with Filter Functions  
` and the abstract `nan`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1132731 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].

This paper should be classified into: Genetic_Algorithms