Masaya Nakata
ABSTRACT
We study two existing Learning Classifier Systems (LCSs): XCS, which has a complete map (which covers all actions in each state), and XCSAMm, which has a best action map (which covers only the highest-return action in each state). This allows XCSAM to learn with a smaller population size limit (but larger population size) and to learn faster than XCS on well-behaved tasks. However, many tasks have dif- ficulties like noise and class imbalances. XCS and XCSAM have not been compared on such problems before. This pa- per aims to discover which kind of map is more robust to these difficulties. We apply them to a classification problem (the multiplexer problem) with class imbalance, Gaussian noise or alternating noise (where we return the reward for a different action). We also compare them on real-world data from the UCI repository without adding noise. We analyze how XCSAM focuses on the best action map and introduce a novel deletion mechanism that helps to evolve classifiers towards a best action map. Results show the best action map is more robust (has higher accuracy and sometimes learns faster) in all cases except small amounts of alternat- ing noise.
- E. Bernado-mansilla and J. M.Garrell-Guiu. Accuracy-based Learning Classifier Systems: Models, Analysis and Applications to Classification Tasks. Evolutionary Computation, 11:209--238, 2003. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Larry Bull, Ester Bernado-Mansilla, and John H. Holmes, editors. Learning Classifier Systems in Data Mining, volume 125 of Studies in Computational Intelligence. Springer, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. V. Butz and S. W. Wilson. An algorithmic description of XCS. Journal of Soft Computing, 6(3--4):144--153, 2002.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. V. Butz, D. E. Goldberg, and P. L. Lanzi. Gradient descent methods in learning classifier systems: Improving XCS performance in multistep problems. IEEE Trans. on Evol. Comp., 9(5):452--473, October 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. V. Butz, P. L. Lanzi, and S. W. Wilson. Function approximation with XCS: Hyperellipsoidal conditions, recursive least squares, and compaction. IEEE Trans. on Evol. Comp., 12(3):355--376, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. E. Goldberg. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning. Addison Wesley, 1989. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. H. Holland. Escaping Brittleness: The Possibilities of General Purpose Learning Algorithms Applied to Parallel Rule-based system. Machine Learning, 2:593--623, 1986.Google Scholar
- F. Kharbat, L. Bull, and M. Odeh. Mining breast cancer data with XCS. Proc. of the Genetic and Evol. Comp. Conf. (GECCO2007), pages 2066--2073, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Kovacs. Deletion schemes for classifier systems. Proc. of the Genetic and Evol. Comp. Conf. (GECCO1999), pages 329--336, 1999.Google Scholar
- Pier Luca Lanzi. Learning classifier systems from a reinforcement learning perspective. Soft Computing - A Fusion of Foundations, Methodologies and Applications, 6(3):162--170, 2002.Google Scholar
- M. Nakata, P. L. Lanzi, and K. Takadama. Enhancing Learning Capabilities by XCS with Best Action Mapping. In PPSN XII, volume 7491 of LNCS, pages 256--265. Springer, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Nakata, P. L. Lanzi, and K. Takadama. XCS with Adaptive Action Mapping. In SEAL2012, volume 7673 of LNCS, pages 138--147. Springer, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Masaya Nakata, Pier Luca Lanzi, and Keiki Takadama. Selection strategy for XCS with adaptive action mapping. In GECCO2013, p. 1085--1092. ACM, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Orriols and E. Bernado-Mansilla. Class imbalance problem in UCS classifier system: fitness adaptation. In CEC2005, vol. 1, p. 604--611. IEEE, 2005.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Orriols-Puig and E. Bernadó-Mansilla. Bounding XCS's parameters for unbalanced datasets. In GECCO2006, pages 1561--1568. ACM, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- UCIrvine Machine Learning Repository. http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/.Google Scholar
- C. Stone and L. Bull. Comparing XCS and ZCS on noisy continuous valued environments. In ETechnical Report. UWE, 2005.Google Scholar
- R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto. Reinforcement Learning -- An Introduction. MIT Press, 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fani A. Tzima and Pericles A. Mitkas. ZCS Revisited: Zeroth-level Classifier Systems for Data Mining. ICDM Workshops, pages 700--709, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. W. Wilson. ZCS: A Zeroth Level Classifier System. Evolutionary Computation, 2(1):1--18, 1994. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. W. Wilson. Classifier fitness based on accuracy. Evolutionary Computation, 3(2):149--175, June 1995. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Complete action map or best action map in accuracy-based reinforcement learning classifier systems
Recommendations
Selection strategy for XCS with adaptive action mapping
GECCO '13: Proceedings of the 15th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computationXCS with Adaptive Action Mapping (XCSAM) evolves so- lutions focused on classifiers that advocate the best action in every state. Accordingly, XCSAM usually evolves more compact solutions than XCS which, in contrast, works to- ward solutions ...
Classifier systems that compute action mappings
GECCO '07: Proceedings of the 9th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computationThe learning in a niche based learning classifier system depends both on the complexity of the problem space and on the number of available actions. In this paper, we introduce a version of XCS with computed actions, briefly XCSCA, that can be applied ...
Learning classifier system ensemble for data mining
GECCO '05: Proceedings of the 7th annual workshop on Genetic and evolutionary computationThis paper proposes LCSE, a learning classifier system ensemble, which is an extension of the classical learning classifier system(LCS). The classical LCS includes two major modules, a genetic algorithm module used to facilitate rule discovery, and a ...
Comments