Accurate High Performance Concrete Prediction with an Alignment-Based Genetic Programming System
Source abstract
Abstract
In 2013, our research group published a contribution in which a new version of genetic programming, called Geometric Semantic Genetic Programming (GSGP), was fostered as an appropriate computational intelligence method for predicting the strength of high-performance concrete. That successful work, in which GSGP was shown to outperform the existing systems, allowed us to promote GSGP as the new state-of-the-art technology for high-performance concrete strength prediction. In this paper, we propose, for the first time, a novel genetic programming system called Nested Align Genetic Programming (NAGP). NAGP exploits semantic awareness in a completely different way compared to GSGP. The reported experimental results show that NAGP is able to significantly outperform GSGP for high-performance concrete strength prediction. More specifically, not only NAGP is able to obtain more accurate predictions than GSGP, but NAGP is also able to generate predictive models with a much smaller size, and thus easier to understand and interpret, than the ones generated by GSGP. Thanks to this ability of NAGP, we are able here to show the model evolved by NAGP, which was impossible for GSGP.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Infrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring · Innovative concrete reinforcement materials · Advanced Surface Polishing Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (29)
Show source-provided references
1. Abrams, D. A. (1927). Water-cement ration as a basis of concrete quality. ACI Materials Journal, 23(2), 452–457.
2. Bhanja, S., & Sengupta, B. (2005). Influence of silica fume on the tensile strength of concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 35(4), 743–747.10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.05.024 ↗
3. Castelli, M., Silva, S., & Vanneschi, L. (2015). A C ++ framework for geometric semantic genetic programming. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 16(1), 73–81.10.1007/s10710-014-9218-0 ↗
4. Castelli, M., Vanneschi, L., & Silva, S. (2013). Prediction of high performance concrete strength using genetic programming with geometric semantic genetic operators. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(17), 6856–6862.10.1016/j.eswa.2013.06.037 ↗
5. Castelli, M., Vanneschi, L., Silva, S., & Ruberto, S. (2014). How to exploit alignment in the error space: Two different gp models. In R. Riolo, W.P. Worzel, & M. Kotanchek (Eds.), Genetic programming theory and practice XII, genetic and evolutionary computation (pp. 133–148). Ann Arbor, USA: Springer.
6. Cheng, M. Y., Firdausi, P. M., & Prayogo, D. (2014). High-performance concrete compressive strength prediction using Genetic Weighted Pyramid Operation Tree (GWPOT). Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 29, 104–113.10.1016/j.engappai.2013.11.014 ↗
7. Cheng, M. Y., Prayogo, D., & Wu, Y. W. (2013). Novel genetic algorithm-based evolutionary support vector machine for optimizing high-performance concrete mixture. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 28(4), 06014003.10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000347 ↗
8. Chou, J. S., Chiu, C. K., Farfoura, M., & Al-Taharwa, I. (2010). Optimizing the prediction accuracy of concrete compressive strength based on a comparison of data-mining techniques. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 25(3), 242–253.10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000088 ↗
9. Cleary, J. G., & Trigg, L. E. (1995). K*: An instance-based learner using an entropic distance measure. In Machine learning proceedings 1995 (pp. 108–114).10.1016/B978-1-55860-377-6.50022-0 ↗
10. Eiben, E., & Smith, J., E. (2003). Introduction to evolutionary computing. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-05094-1 ↗
11. Frank, E, Hall, M. A., & Witten, I. H. (2016). The WEKA workbench. Online Appendix for “Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques” (4th ed.). Morgan Kaufmann.
12. Gonçalves, I., Silva, S., Fonseca, C. M., & Castelli, M. (2016). Arbitrarily close alignments in the error space: A geometric semantic genetic programming approach. In Proceedings of the 2016 on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion, GECCO’16 companion (pp. 99–100). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
13. Haykin, S. (1999). Neural networks: A comprehensive foundation. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
14. Hoffmann, L. (2009). Multivariate isotonic regression and its algorithms. Wichita State University, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Department of Mathematics and Statistics.
15. Koza, J. R. (1992). Genetic programming: On the programming of computers by means of natural selection. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
16. Kumar, M., Singh, S. K., & Singh, N. P. (2012). Heat evolution during the hydration of portland cement in the presence of fly ash, calcium hydroxide and super plasticizer. Thermochimica Acta, 548(Supplement C), 27–32.10.1016/j.tca.2012.08.028 ↗
17. Lomborg, B. (2001). The skeptical environmentalist: Measuring the real state of the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139626378 ↗
18. Moraglio, A., Krawiec, K., & Johnson, C. (2012). Geometric semantic genetic programming. In C. Coello, V. Cutello, K. Deb, S. Forrest, G. Nicosia, and M. Pavone (Eds.), Parallel problem solving from nature—PPSN XII. Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 7491 (pp. 21–31). Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-29139-5 ↗
19. Nagaraj, T. S., & Banu, Z. (1996). Generalization of abrams’ law. Cement and Concrete Research, 26(6), 933–942.10.1016/0008-8846(96)00065-8 ↗
20. Poli, R., Langdon, W., B., & Mcphee, N., F. (2008). A field guide to genetic programming. March.
21. Popovics, S. (1990). Analysis of concrete strength versus water-cement ratio relationship. ACI Materials Journal, 87(5), 517–529.
22. Ruberto, S., Vanneschi, L., Castelli, M., & Silva, S. (2014). ESAGP—A semantic GP framework based on alignment in the error space (pp. 150–161). Berlin: Springer.
23. Schölkopf, B., & Smola, A. (2002). Learning with kernels: Support vector machines, regularization, optimization and beyond. Adaptative computation and machine learning series. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
24. Vanneschi, L. (2017). An introduction to geometric semantic genetic programming (pp. 3–42). Cham: Springer.
25. Vanneschi, L., Castelli, M., Manzoni, L., & Silva, S. (2013). A new implementation of geometric semantic GP and its application to problems in pharmacokinetics. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Genetic Programming, EuroGP 2013. Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 7831 (pp 205–216). Vienna, Austria: Springer.
26. Vanneschi, L., Castelli, M., & Silva, S. (2014). A survey of semantic methods in genetic programming. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 15, 1–20.10.1007/s10710-013-9210-0 ↗
27. Weisberg, S. (2005). Applied linear regression. Wiley series in probability and statistics. New York: Wiley.10.1002/0471704091 ↗
28. Yeh, I.-C. (1998). Modeling of strength of high-performance concrete using artificial neural networks. Cement and Concrete Research, 28(12), 1797–1808.10.1016/S0008-8846(98)00165-3 ↗
29. Yeh, I. C., & Lien, L. C. (2009). Knowledge discovery of concrete material using genetic operation trees. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 5807–5812.10.1016/j.eswa.2008.07.004 ↗