Problem Driven Machine Learning by Co-evolving Genetic Programming Trees and Rules in a Learning Classifier System

A persistent challenge in data mining involves matching an applicable as well as effective machine learner to a target problem. One approach to facilitate this process is to develop algorithms that avoid modeling assumptions and seek to adapt to the problem at hand. Learning classifier systems (LCSs) have proven themselves to be a flexible, interpretable, and powerful approach to classification problems. They are particularly advantageous with respect to multivariate, complex, or heterogeneous patterns of association. While LCSs have been successfully adapted to handle continuous-valued endpoint (i.e. regression) problems, there are still some key performance deficits with respect to model prediction accuracy and simplicity when compared to other machine learners. In the present study we propose a strategy towards improving LCS performance on supervised learning continuous-valued endpoint problems. Specifically, we hypothesize that if an LCS population includes and co-evolves two disparate representations (i.e. LCS rules, and genetic programming trees) than the system can adapt the appropriate representation to best capture meaningful patterns of association, regardless of the complexity of that association, or the nature of the endpoint (i.e. discrete vs. continuous). To successfully integrate these modeling representations, we rely on multi-objective fitness (i.e. accuracy, and instance coverage) and an information exchange mechanism between the two representation ‘species’. This paper lays out the reasoning for this approach, introduces the proposed methodology, and presents basic preliminary results supporting the potential of this approach as an area for further evaluation and development.

[1]  P. Lanzi Extending the representation of classifier conditions part I: from binary to messy coding , 1999 .

[2]  Mengjie Zhang,et al.  Evolving optimum populations with XCS classifier systems , 2012, Soft Computing.

[3]  Jason H. Moore,et al.  Continuous Endpoint Data Mining with ExSTraCS: A Supervised Learning Classifier System , 2015, GECCO.

[4]  Manuel Valenzuela-Rendón,et al.  The Fuzzy Classifier System: A Classifier System for Continuously Varying Variables , 1991, ICGA.

[5]  Jason H. Moore,et al.  Using Expert Knowledge to Guide Covering and Mutation in a Michigan Style Learning Classifier System to Detect Epistasis and Heterogeneity , 2012, PPSN.

[6]  Daniele Loiacono,et al.  Classifier systems that compute action mappings , 2007, GECCO '07.

[7]  Edmund K. Burke,et al.  Improving the scalability of rule-based evolutionary learning , 2009, Memetic Comput..

[8]  Ester Bernadó-Mansilla,et al.  Fuzzy-UCS: A Michigan-Style Learning Fuzzy-Classifier System for Supervised Learning , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[9]  Andrea Bonarini,et al.  An Introduction to Learning Fuzzy Classifier Systems , 1999, Learning Classifier Systems.

[10]  Will N. Browne,et al.  Introduction to Learning Classifier Systems , 2017, SpringerBriefs in Intelligent Systems.

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

[12]  Larry Bull,et al.  A Genetic Programming-based Classifier System , 1999, GECCO.

[13]  Jason H. Moore,et al.  Retooling Fitness for Noisy Problems in a Supervised Michigan-style Learning Classifier System , 2015, GECCO.

[14]  Jason H. Moore,et al.  The application of michigan-style learning classifiersystems to address genetic heterogeneity and epistasisin association studies , 2010, GECCO '10.

[15]  John R. Koza,et al.  Genetic programming 2 - automatic discovery of reusable programs , 1994, Complex Adaptive Systems.

[16]  Jason H. Moore,et al.  Role of genetic heterogeneity and epistasis in bladder cancer susceptibility and outcome: a learning classifier system approach , 2013, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[17]  Randal S. Olson,et al.  Pareto Inspired Multi-objective Rule Fitness for Noise-Adaptive Rule-Based Machine Learning , 2016, PPSN.

[18]  Martin V. Butz,et al.  Context-dependent predictions and cognitive arm control with XCSF , 2008, GECCO '08.

[19]  Ester Bernadó-Mansilla,et al.  Accuracy-Based Learning Classifier Systems: Models, Analysis and Applications to Classification Tasks , 2003, Evolutionary Computation.

[20]  Stewart W. Wilson Classifiers that approximate functions , 2002, Natural Computing.

[21]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  A Survey on the Application of Genetic Programming to Classification , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews).

[22]  Jason H. Moore,et al.  The Application of Pittsburgh-Style Learning Classifier Systems to Address Genetic Heterogeneity and Epistasis in Association Studies , 2010, PPSN.

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

[24]  Jason H. Moore,et al.  ExSTraCS 2.0: description and evaluation of a scalable learning classifier system , 2015, Evolutionary Intelligence.

[25]  Mengjie Zhang,et al.  XCSR with Computed Continuous Action , 2012, Australasian Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[26]  Jason H. Moore,et al.  Instance-linked attribute tracking and feedback for michigan-style supervised learning classifier systems , 2012, GECCO '12.

[27]  Jason H. Moore,et al.  Learning classifier systems: a complete introduction, review, and roadmap , 2009 .

[28]  Stewart W. Wilson Function approximation with a classifier system , 2001 .

[29]  Jason H. Moore,et al.  An Extended Michigan-Style Learning Classifier System for Flexible Supervised Learning, Classification, and Data Mining , 2014, PPSN.

[30]  Stewart W. Wilson Three Architectures for Continuous Action , 2005, IWLCS.