Skip to main content
Log in

Self-adaptation in classifier system controllers

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Artificial Life and Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The use and benefits of self-adaptive mutation operators are well known within evolutionary computing. In this paper, we begin by examining the use of self-adaptive mutation in learning classifier systems with the aim of improving their performance as controllers for autonomous mobile robots. We implement the operator in a zeroth level classifier system, and examine its performance in two animat environments. It is shown that although no significant increase in performance is seen over results presented in the literature using a fixed rate of mutation, the operator adapts to an appropriate rateregadless of the initial range. The same concept is then applied to the learning rate parameter, but results show that a modification must be made to produce stable/effective controllers. Finally, results from a fully self-adaptive system are presented, with marked benefits being found in a nonstationary environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. University of Michigan Press

  2. Cliff D, Harvey I, Husbands P (1993) Explorations in evolutionary robotics. Adapt Behav 2:71–104.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Floreano D, Mondada F (1996) Evolution of plastic neurocontrollers for situated agents. In: Maes P, Mataric M, Meyer J-A, Pollack J, Wilson SW (eds) From animals to animats, vol 4. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behaviour, MIT Press, Cambridge, p 402–410

    Google Scholar 

  4. Koza JR (1991) Genetic programming. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  5. Rechenberg I (1973) Evolutionsstrategie: Optimierung technischer Systeme nach Prinzipen der biologischen Evolution. Frommann-Holzboog

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fogel DB (1992) Evolving artificial intelligence. PhD Dissertation, University of California

  7. Bäck T (1992) Self-adaptation in genetic algorithms. In: Varela FJ, Bourgine P (eds) Toward a practice of autonomous systems. Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Artificial Life, MIT Press, Cambridge, p 263–271

    Google Scholar 

  8. Holland JH, Holyoak KJ, Nisbett RE, et al. (1986) Induction: processes of inference, learning and discovery. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wilson SW (1994) ZCS: a zeroth-level classifier system. Evol Comput 2:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wilson SW (1985) Knowledge growth in an artificial animal. In: Grefenstette JJ (ed) Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Genetic Algorithms and their Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum, London, p 16–23.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Angeline PJ, Foyel DB, Foyd LJ (1996) A comparison of self-adaptation methods for finite state machines in a dynamic environment. In: Foyd IJ, Angeline PJ, Baeck T (eds) Evolutionary Programming V. MIT Press, Cambridge, p 441–449

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dorigo M, Colombetti M (1999) Robot shaping: an experiment in behavior engineering. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  13. Riolo R (1991) Lookahead planning and latent learning in a classifier system. In: Meyer J-A, Wilson SW (eds) From animals to animats. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behaviour, MIT Press, Cambridge, p 316–326.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cliff D, Bullock S (1993) Adding “foveal vision” to Wilson's animat. Adapt Behav 2:47–70

    Google Scholar 

  15. Donnart J-Y, Meyer J-A (1996) Spatial exploration, map learning, and self-positioning with Mona Lysa. In: Maes P, Mataric M, Meyer J-A, Pollack J, Wilson SW (eds) From animals to animats, vol 4. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behaviour, MIT Press, Cambridge, p 204–213

    Google Scholar 

  16. Stolzmann W (1999) Latent learning in Khepra robots with anticipatory classifier systems. In: Wu AS (ed) Proceedings of the 1999 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Workshop Program, Morgan Kauffman, Los Alto S, p290–297

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lanzi P-L, Stolzmann W, Wilson SW (eds) (2000) Learning classifier systems: an introduction to contemporary research. Springer.

  18. Cliff D, Ross S (1995) Adding temporary memory to ZCS. Adapt Behav 3:101–150

    Google Scholar 

  19. Tomlinson A, Bull L (1998) A corporate classifier system. In: Eiben AE, Bäck T, Schoenauer M, Schwefel H-P (eds) Parallel problem solving from nature: PPSN V. Springer, p 550–559

  20. Bäck T (1998) On the behaviour of evolutionary algorithms in dynamic environments. In: Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE Press, Piscataway, p 446–451

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wilson SW (1995) Classifier fitness based on accuracy. Evol Comput 3:149–177

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacob Hurst.

About this article

Cite this article

Hurst, J., Bull, L. Self-adaptation in classifier system controllers. Artif Life Robotics 5, 109–119 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02481348

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02481348

Key words

Navigation