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 #1129610. 	[Title] Coevolving Communicative Behavior in a Linear Pursuer-Evader Game [Abstract] The pursuer-evader (PE) game is recognized as an important domain in which to study the coevolution of robust adaptive behavior and protean behavior (Miller and Cliff, 1994). Nevertheless, the potential of the game is largely unrealized due to methodological hurdles in coevolutionary simulation raised by PE; versions of the game that have optimal solutions (Isaacs, 1965) are closed-ended, while other formulations are opaque with respect to their solution space, for the lack of a rigorous metric of agent behavior. This inability to characterize behavior, in turn, obfuscates coevolutionary dynamics. We present a new formulation of PE that affords a rigorous measure of agent behavior and system dynamics. The game is moved from the two-dimensional plane to the one-dimensional bit-string; at each time step, the evader generates a bit that the pursuer must simultaneously predict. Because behavior is expressed as a time series, we can employ information theory to provide quantitative analysis of agent activity. Further, this version of PE opens vistas onto the communicative component of pursuit and evasion behavior, providing an open-ended serial communications channel and an open world (via coevolution). Results show that subtle changes to our game determine whether it is open-ended, and profoundly affect the viability of arms-race dynamics. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #61069. 	[Title] Tracking the red queen: Measurements of adaptive progress in co-evolution ary simulations. In Third European [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #108047. 	[Title] Evolving a Team [Abstract]  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.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #35. 	[Title] 4 Implementing Application Specific Routines  Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. [Abstract] To implement a specific application, you should only have to change the file app.c. Section 2 describes the routines in app.c in detail. If you use additional variables for your specific problem, the easiest method of making them available to other program units is to declare them in sga.h and external.h. However, take care that you do not redeclare existing variables. Two example applications files are included in the SGA-C distribution. The file app1.c performs the simple example problem included with the Pascal version; finding the maximum of x 10 , where x is an integer interpretation of a chromosome. A slightly more complex application is include in app2.c. This application illustrates two features that have been added to SGA-C. The first of these is the ithruj2int function, which converts bits i through j in a chromosome to an integer. The second new feature is the utility pointer that is associated with each population member. The example application interprets each chromosome as a set of concatenated integers in binary form. The lengths of these integer fields is determined by the user-specified value of field size, which is read in by the function app data(). The field size must be less than the smallest of the chromosome length and the length of an unsigned integer. An integer array for storing the interpreted form of each chromosome is dynamically allocated and assigned to the chromosome's utility pointer in app malloc(). The ithruj2int routine (see utility.c) is used to translate each chromosome into its associated vector. The fitness for each chromosome is simply the sum of the squares of these integers. This example application will function for any chromosome length. SGA-C is intended to be a simple program for first-time GA experimentation. It is not intended to be definitive in terms of its efficiency or the grace of its implementation. The authors are interested in the comments, criticisms, and bug reports from SGA-C users, so that the code can be refined for easier use in subsequent versions. Please email your comments to rob@galab2.mh.ua.edu, or write to TCGA: The authors gratefully acknowledge support provided by NASA under Grant NGT-50224 and support provided by the National Science Foundation under Grant CTS-8451610. We also thank Hillol Kargupta for donating his tournament selection implementation. Booker, L. B. (1982). Intelligent behavior as an adaptation to the task environment (Doctoral dissertation, Technical Report No. 243. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Logic of Computers Group). Dissertations Abstracts International, 43(2), 469B. (University Microfilms No. 8214966) 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 #1128997. 	[Title] Stochastic Random or probabilistic but with some direction. For example the arrival of people at [Abstract] Simulated Annealing Search technique where a single trial solution is modified at random. An energy is defined which represents how good the solution is. The goal is to find the best solution by minimising the energy. Changes which lead to a lower energy are always accepted; an increase is probabilistically accepted. The probability is given by exp(E=k B T ). Where E is the change in energy, k B is a constant and T is the Temperature. Initially the temperature is high corresponding to a liquid or molten state where large changes are possible and it is progressively reduced using a cooling schedule so allowing smaller changes until the system solidifies at a low energy solution. 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 #210871. 	[Title] Coevolving High-Level Representations [Abstract]  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 #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 #38205. 	[Title] Competitive Environments Evolve Better Solutions for Complex Tasks [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #117316. 	[Title] A Simulation of Adaptive Agents in a Hostile Environment [Abstract] In this paper we use the genetic programming technique to evolve programs to control an autonomous agent capable of learning how to survive in a hostile environment. In order to facilitate this goal, agents are run through random environment configurations. Randomly generated programs, which control the interaction of the agent with its environment, are recombined to form better programs. Each generation of the population of agents is placed into the Simulator with the ultimate goal of producing an agent capable of surviving any environment. The environment that an agent is presented consists of other agents, mines, and energy. The goal of this research is to construct a program which when executed will allow an agent (or agents) to correctly sense, and mark, the presence of items (energy and mines) in any environment. The Simulator determines the raw fitness of each agent by interpreting the associated program. General programs are evolved to solve this problem. Different environmental setups are presented to show the generality of the solution. These environments include one agent in a fixed environment, one agent in a fluctuating environment, and multiple agents in a fluctuating environment cooperating together. The genetic programming technique was extremely successful. The average fitness per generation in all three environments tested showed steady improvement. Programs were successfully generated that enabled an agent to handle any possible environment. 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 #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 #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 #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 #887. 	[Title] Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM Journal, 3(3):211-229, 1959. Some [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #1153942 has the title `nan` and the 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. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1153942 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #1153942 has the title `nan` and the 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. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1153942 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