The Fighter Aircraft LCS: A Case of Different LCS Goals and Techniques

A system employed by the authors to acquire novel fighter aircraft manoeuvres from combat simulation is more akin to the traditional LCS model than to more recent systems. Given the difficulties often experienced in LCS research on simple problems, one must ask how a relatively primitive LCS has had consistent success in the complex domain of fighter aircraft manoeuvring. This paper presents the fighter aircraft LCS, in greater detail than in previous publications. Positive results from the system are discussed. The paper then focuses on the primary reasons the fighter aircraft LCS has avoided the difficulties of the traditional LCS. The authors believe the system's success has three primary origins: differences in credit assignment, differences in action encoding, and (possibly most importantly) a difference in system goals. In the fighter aircraft system, the goal has been simply the discovery of innovative, novel tactics, rather than online control. The paper concludes by discussing the most salient features of the fighter aircraft learning system, and how those features may be profitably combined with other LCS developments.

[1]  Richard S. Sutton,et al.  Introduction to Reinforcement Learning , 1998 .

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

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

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

[5]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Evolutionary Computation 2 , 2000 .

[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]  Donald A. Waterman,et al.  Pattern-Directed Inference Systems , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[8]  Robert L. Shaw,et al.  Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering , 1985 .

[9]  Robert E. Smith,et al.  Fitness inheritance in genetic algorithms , 1995, SAC '95.

[10]  Howard Raiffa,et al.  Games And Decisions , 1958 .

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

[12]  Robert E. Smith,et al.  Classifier systems in combat: two-sided learning of maneuvers for advanced fighter aircraft , 2000 .

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

[14]  Stewart W. Wilson State of XCS Classifier System Research , 1999, Learning Classifier Systems.

[15]  Stefano Nolfi,et al.  God Save the Red Queen! Competition in Co-Evolutionary Robotics , 1997 .

[16]  W. Hamilton,et al.  The Evolution of Cooperation , 1984 .

[17]  John H. Holland,et al.  Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning, and Discovery , 1987, IEEE Expert.

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