Analysis and improvement of the genetic discovery component of XCS

XCS is a learning classifier system that uses genetic algorithms to evolve a population of classifiers online. When applied to classification problems described by continuous attributes, XCS has demonstrated to be able to evolve classification models - represented as a set of independent interval-based rules - that are, at least, as accurate as those created by some of the most competitive machine learning techniques such as C4.5. Despite these successful results, analyses of how the different genetic operators affect the rule evolution for the interval-based rule representation are lacking. This paper focuses on this issue and conducts a systematic experimental analysis of the effect of the different genetic operators. The observations and conclusions drawn from the analysis are used as a tool for designing new operators that enable the system to extract models that are more accurate than those obtained by the original XCS scheme. More specifically, the system is provided with a new discovery component based on evolution strategies, and a new crossover operator is designed for both the original discovery component and the new one based on evolution strategies. In all these cases, the behavior of the new operators are carefully analyzed and compared with the ones provided by original XCS. The overall analysis enables us to supply important insights into the behavior of different operators and to improve the learning of interval-based rules in real-world domains on average.

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

[2]  Martin V. Butz,et al.  Gradient descent methods in learning classifier systems: improving XCS performance in multistep problems , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[3]  Y. Hochberg.  A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance , 1988 .

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

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

[6]  W. Vent,et al.  Rechenberg, Ingo, Evolutionsstrategie — Optimierung technischer Systeme nach Prinzipien der biologischen Evolution. 170 S. mit 36 Abb. Frommann‐Holzboog‐Verlag. Stuttgart 1973. Broschiert , 1975 .

[7]  O. J. Dunn.  Multiple Comparisons among Means , 1961 .

[8]  D. E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search , 1989 .

[9]  T. Kovacs.  Deletion schemes for classifier systems , 1999 .

[10]  Richard S. Sutton,et al.  Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction , 1998, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[11]  Ester Bernadó-Mansilla,et al.  Genetic-based machine learning systems are competitive for pattern recognition , 2008, Evol. Intell..

[12]  Martin V. Butz,et al.  An algorithmic description of XCS , 2000, Soft Comput..

[13]  Tin Kam Ho,et al.  Domain of competence of XCS classifier system in complexity measurement space , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[14]  Martin V. Butz,et al.  Rule-Based Evolutionary Online Learning Systems - A Principled Approach to LCS Analysis and Design , 2006, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing.

[15]  Ingo Rechenberg,et al.  Evolutionsstrategie : Optimierung technischer Systeme nach Prinzipien der biologischen Evolution , 1973 .

[16]  Janez Demsar,et al.  Statistical Comparisons of Classifiers over Multiple Data Sets , 2006, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[17]  Thomas G. Dietterich.  Approximate Statistical Tests for Comparing Supervised Classification Learning Algorithms , 1998, Neural Computation.

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

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

[20]  F. Wilcoxon.  Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods , 1945 .

[21]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Tackling Real-Coded Genetic Algorithms: Operators and Tools for Behavioural Analysis , 1998, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[22]  Martin V. Butz,et al.  Strong, Stable, and Reliable Fitness Pressure in XCS due to Tournament Selection , 2005, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[23]  S. Holm.  A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure , 1979 .

[24]  D. E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization & Machine Learning , 1989 .

[25]  M. Friedman.  A Comparison of Alternative Tests of Significance for the Problem of $m$ Rankings , 1940 .

[26]  Ester Bernadó-Mansilla,et al.  Evolutionary rule-based systems for imbalanced data sets , 2008, Soft Comput..

[27]  M. Friedman.  The Use of Ranks to Avoid the Assumption of Normality Implicit in the Analysis of Variance , 1937 .

[28]  Xavier Llorà,et al.  XCS and GALE: A Comparative Study of Two Learning Classifier Systems on Data Mining , 2001, IWLCS.

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

[30]  H. Crichton-Miller.  Adaptation , 1926 .

[31]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Modeling selection pressure in XCS for proportionate and tournament selection , 2007, GECCO '07.