Analysis and Improvement of Fitness Exploitation in XCS: Bounding Models, Tournament Selection, and Bilateral Accuracy

The evolutionary learning mechanism in XCS strongly depends on its accuracy-based fitness approach. The approach is meant to result in an evolutionary drive from classifiers of low accuracy to those of high accuracy. Since, given inaccuracy, lower specificity often corresponds to lower accuracy, fitness pressure most often also results in a pressure towards higher specificity. Moreover, fitness pressure should cause the evolutionary process to be innovative in that it combines low-order building blocks of lower accurate classifiers, to higher-order building blocks with higher accuracy. This paper investigates how, when, and where accuracy-based fitness results in successful rule evolution in XCS. Along the way, a weakness in the current proportionate selection method in XCS is identified. Several problem bounds are derived that need to be obeyed to enable proper evolutionary pressure. Moreover, a fitness dilemma is identified that causes accuracy-based fitness to be misleading. Improvements are introduced to XCS to make fitness pressure more robust and overcome the fitness dilemma. Specifically, (1) tournament selection results in a much better fitness-bias exploitation, and (2) bilateral accuracy prevents the fitness dilemma. While the improvements stand for themselves, we believe they also contribute to the ultimate goal of an evolutionary learning system that is able to solve decomposable machine-learning problems quickly, accurately, and reliably. The paper also contributes to the further understanding of XCS in general and the fitness approach in XCS in particular.

[1]  Tim Kovacs,et al.  XCS's Strength-Based Twin: Part II , 2002, IWLCS.

[2]  Martin V. Butz,et al.  Tournament Selection: Stable Fitness Pressure in XCS , 2003, GECCO.

[3]  M. Colombetti,et al.  An extension to the XCS classifier system for stochastic environments , 1999 .

[4]  Stewart W. Wilson Generalization in the XCS Classifier System , 1998 .

[5]  James E. Baker,et al.  Adaptive Selection Methods for Genetic Algorithms , 1985, International Conference on Genetic Algorithms.

[6]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[7]  T. Kovacs Deletion schemes for classifier systems , 1999 .

[8]  John H. Holland,et al.  COGNITIVE SYSTEMS BASED ON ADAPTIVE ALGORITHMS1 , 1978 .

[9]  T. Kovacs XCS Classifier System Reliably Evolves Accurate, Complete, and Minimal Representations for Boolean Functions , 1998 .

[10]  Stewart W. Wilson Get Real! XCS with Continuous-Valued Inputs , 1999, Learning Classifier Systems.

[11]  Tim Kovacs,et al.  Towards a Theory of Strong Overgeneral Classifiers , 2000, FOGA.

[12]  D. Goldberg,et al.  A practical schema theorem for genetic algorithm design and tuning , 2001 .

[13]  H. Crichton-Miller Adaptation , 1926 .

[14]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[15]  Stewart W. Wilson Classifier Fitness Based on Accuracy , 1995, Evolutionary Computation.

[16]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  A Survey of Optimization by Building and Using Probabilistic Models , 2002, Comput. Optim. Appl..

[17]  Tim Kovacs,et al.  Strength or Accuracy? Fitness Calculation in Learning Classifier Systems , 1999, Learning Classifier Systems.

[18]  J. Ross Quinlan,et al.  C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning , 1992 .

[19]  Pier Luca Lanzi,et al.  An Analysis of Generalization in the XCS Classifier System , 1999, Evolutionary Computation.

[20]  Kenneth A. De Jong,et al.  Learning Concept Classification Rules Using Genetic Algorithms , 1991, IJCAI.

[21]  Martin J. Oates,et al.  A Preliminary Investigation of Modified XCS as a Generic Data Mining Tool , 2001, IWLCS.

[22]  Stewart W. Wilson Mining Oblique Data with XCS , 2000, IWLCS.

[23]  Gilles Venturini,et al.  Adaptation in dynamic environments through a minimal probability of exploration , 1994 .

[24]  Martin V. Butz,et al.  Toward a theory of generalization and learning in XCS , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[25]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A Comparative Analysis of Selection Schemes Used in Genetic Algorithms , 1990, FOGA.

[26]  Martin V. Butz,et al.  An algorithmic description of XCS , 2000, Soft Comput..

[27]  M. Pelikán,et al.  Analyzing the evolutionary pressures in XCS , 2001 .

[28]  Larry Bull,et al.  ZCS Redux , 2002, Evolutionary Computation.

[29]  P. Lanzi,et al.  Adaptive Agents with Reinforcement Learning and Internal Memory , 2000 .

[30]  Tim Kovacs,et al.  XCS's Strength-Based Twin: Part I , 2002, IWLCS.

[31]  Xavier Llorà,et al.  XCS and GALE: A Comparative Study of Two Learning Classifier Systems on Data Mining , 2001, IWLCS.

[32]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  The Design of Innovation: Lessons from and for Competent Genetic Algorithms , 2002 .

[33]  John H. Holland,et al.  Cognitive systems based on adaptive algorithms , 1977, SGAR.

[34]  Tim Kovacs,et al.  What Makes a Problem Hard for XCS? , 2000, IWLCS.

[35]  Martin V. Butz,et al.  How XCS evolves accurate classifiers , 2001 .