Symbiogenesis in Learning Classifier Systems

Symbiosis is the phenomenon in which organisms of different species live together in close association, resulting in a raised level of fitness for one or more of the organisms. Symbiogenesis is the name given to the process by which symbiotic partners combine and unify, that is, become genetically linked, giving rise to new morphologies and physiologies evolutionarily more advanced than their constituents. The importance of this process in the evolution of complexity is now well established. Learning classifier systems are a machine learning technique that uses both evolutionary computing techniques and reinforcement learning to develop a population of cooperative rules to solve a given task. In this article we examine the use of symbiogenesis within the classifier system rule base to improve their performance. Results show that incorporating simple rule linkage does not give any benefits. The concept of (temporal) encapsulation is then added to the symbiotic rules and shown to improve performance in ambiguous/non-Markov environments.

[1]  Ikegami,et al.  Genetic fusion. , 1990, Physical review letters.

[2]  E. Szathmáry,et al.  The origin of chromosomes. I. Selection for linkage. , 1993, Journal of theoretical biology.

[3]  John J. Grefenstette,et al.  Multilevel Credit Assignment in a Genetic Learning System , 1987, International Conference on Genetic Algorithms.

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

[5]  Larry Bull,et al.  A zeroth level corporate classifier system , 1999 .

[6]  Larry Bull,et al.  Evolutionary computing in multi-agent environments: Partners , 1997 .

[7]  Robert E. Smith,et al.  Memory Exploitation in Learning Classifier Systems , 1994, Evolutionary Computation.

[8]  Robert Axelrod,et al.  The Evolution of Strategies in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma , 2001 .

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

[10]  T. Fogarty,et al.  Artificial symbiogenesis , 1995 .

[11]  Lashon B. Booker,et al.  Triggered Rule Discovery in Classifier Systems , 1989, ICGA.

[12]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  A Critical Review of Classifier Systems , 1989, ICGA.

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

[14]  Stewart W. Wilson.  Knowledge Growth in an Artificial Animal , 1985, ICGA.

[15]  Eörs Szathmáry,et al.  The Major Transitions in Evolution , 1997 .

[16]  D. JohnH.HOLLAN.  CONCERNING THE EMERGENCE OF TAG-MEDIATED LOOKAHEAD IN CLASSIFIER SYSTEMS , 2002 .

[17]  Christopher G. Langton,et al.  Cooperation and Community Structure in Artificial Ecosystems , 1997 .

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

[19]  Wolfgang Stolzmann,et al.  An Introduction to Anticipatory Classifier Systems , 1999, Learning Classifier Systems.

[20]  Stewart W. Wilson.  ZCS: A Zeroth Level Classifier System , 1994, Evolutionary Computation.

[21]  Lashon B. Booker,et al.  Improving the Performance of Genetic Algorithms in Classifier Systems , 1985, ICGA.

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

[23]  John J. Grefenstette,et al.  Learning the Persistence of Actions in Reactive Control Rules , 1991, ML.

[24]  Larry Bull.  On the Evolution of Multicellularity and Eusociality , 1999, Artificial Life.

[25]  P. Raven,et al.  ORIGIN OF EUKARYOTIC CELLS , 1971 .

[26]  Jean-Arcady Meyer,et al.  Lookahead Planning and Latent Learning in a Classifier System , 1991 .

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