In fact, it is triggered whenever the classifier system does not have a classifier which matches i. It responds by producing one new classifier that would be satisfied by an environmental message at step t with a condition that matches the unmatched environmental message.
Two considerations must be accounted for when determining the initial strength given to a new classifier created by either the TCDO or the GA: 1.
The strength should not be too low, otherwise the new classifier will never win an auction and therefore never get a chance to prove itself better or worse than existing classifiers. The strength should not be too high, otherwise the new classifiers will be tried too often, overruling existing rules that perform well, and may lead to unstable performance.
Computer simulation studies by Riolo [] and others conclude that rules introduced by the TCDO should have the average of the strengths of the classifiers in the population; while the offspring of the GA should have the average strength of the parents. Unfortunately, this work languished in obscurity until , when it was rediscovered by H. Correns and E. Teschermak Doolitle []. Thus, virtually all inheritance and genetic research has occurred in the 20th century.
Most complex organisms evolve by means of two primary processes: natural selection and sexual reproduction. The first determines which members of a population survive to reproduce, and the second ensures mixing and recombination among the genes of their offspring.
A genetic algorithm GA is a stochastic search algorithm based on the mechanics of natural selection Darwin [] and population genetics Mettler, et al. Genetic algorithms are patterned after natural genetic operators that enable biological populations to effectively and robustly adapt to their environment and to changes in their environment. Some of the correspondences between biological genetics and genetic algorithms are shown in Table 3.
Reproduction in GA theory, as in biology, is defined as the process of producing offspring Melloni et al. Improvements come from trying new, risky things. Because many of the risks fail, exploration involves a period of performance degradation. Deciding to what degree the present should be mortgaged for the future is a classic problem for all systems that adapt and learn.
The genetic algorithm's approach to this obstacle is crossover as discussed below. The following discusses the operators of a basic genetic algorithm. A mathematical justification for the GA's power is provided through the schema theorem Holland []. The schema theorem has developed from earlier work by Holland [] and is under continuing development.
For more information on the schema theorem the interested reader is directed to, in addition to the references already cited, Bethke [], Fitzpatrick and Grefenstette [].
Koza [], and Whitley [] provide both theoretical foundations, as well as lucid descriptions of schema and schema theory. The placement of these operators in the overall genetic algorithm is shown in Figure 3. Classifier systems determine the ranking among the population members via multiple interactions with the environment whereby strength changes occur via the apportionment of credit sub-system of the classifier system.
Only after multiple interactions with the environment will the classifier strengths represent a measure of how well the classifier performs in the environment. The number of iterations that occur between each application of the genetic algorithm is called an epoch.
Therefore in Figure 3. The selection algorithm allocates reproductive trials to classifiers as a function of their strength. Some selection strategies are deterministic such as elitism where just a certain percentage of the strongest classifiers are selected. However, most research has shown that stochastic selection biased by strength is more productive. During selection, high strength classifiers have a greater probability of producing offspring for the next generation than lower strength classifiers.
There are many different ways to implement the stochastic selection operator, with most methods which bias selection towards high strength proving successful as Goldberg and Samtani [] as well as others have shown. Fitness proportionate reproduction is a simple rule whereby the probability of reproduction during a given generation is proportional to the fitness of the individual. Si Strength of the classifier i. This gives every member of the population a finite probability of becoming a parent, with stronger classifiers having a better chance.
After selection, the strings are copied into a mating pool and crossover occurs on the copies. First, panmictic pairs of parents are chosen from the copies in the mating pool. That is, the mate for each individual which was chosen during selection is randomly bred with one of the other classifiers which was chosen during selection.
Techniques have been suggested which bias the mate to have certain characteristics but none of these techniques were employed in the current work. Second, each pair of copies undergoes crossing over as follows: an integer position k along the string is selected uniformly at random on the interval 1, L-1 , where L is the length of the string. Two new strings classifiers are created by swapping all characters between positions L and k inclusively. Consider the random selection of k is four. The simple crossover described above is a special case of the n-point crossover operator.
In the n-point crossover operator, more than one crossover point is selected and several substrings from each parent are exchanged. This study employs solely the single- point crossover operator. Although the mechanics of the selection and crossover operators are simple, the biased selection and the structured, though stochastic, information exchange of crossover give genetic algorithms much of their power.
Mutation is needed to guard against premature convergence, and to guarantee that any location in the search space may be reached. By itself, mutation is a random walk through the classifier space. The frequency of mutation, by biological analogy and empirical studies, is on the order of one mutation per ten thousand position transfers.
The classic implementations of classifier systems and genetic algorithms have constant size populations. Therefore for each new individual created, another individual must be eliminated.
An important dynamic of GAs and CSs is the population percentage replaced on each generation. Generational replacement genetic algorithm GRGA replaces the entire population with each generation; this is the traditional approach of straight genetic algorithms. Steady state genetic algorithm SSGA replaces only a small portion of the population on each generation. Classifier systems normally use the SSGA approach.
This study will not deviate from the norm and uses a SSGA. With a SSGA approach, the question of which classifiers to replace arises. The senescence of a classifier plays no factor in replacement; a classifier may be eliminated after only one generation or potentially be immortal.
While it is logical to replace low strength classifiers, simple replacement of the worst can be improved upon. A crowding mechanism among a low strength sub-population is implemented. The technique is modeled on that by De Jong []. The technique is employed for each new classifier generated for insertion into the population. A crowding factor of checks are made to determine which classifier to replace. Each check consists of randomly selecting a crowding sub-population from the entire population, then selecting the lowest strength classifier in the sub- population.
The selected classifier is added to a pool of replacement candidates. When the crowding factor checks are complete, the pool members are compared to the child and the child replaces the most similar candidate on the basis of similarity count. Similarity count is a simple count of the positions where both the child and candidate are identical. This method is beneficial in that it helps maintain diversity within the population.
After completing the above, each of the offspring is checked to see if it is a twin to any of the other members of the population. This may occur even with the above procedure because the twins may be both offspring. If a twin is found, a mutation is introduced into the lower strength twin, the process is repeated, if necessary, until the individual is unique.
A twin provides no benefits and is detrimental because it decreases population diversity. This arrangement is called application mode, and is shown in Figure 3. As stated, one may commence with many possible initial populations. To fully test the learning ability of the CS a tabula rasa is used.
Even if a randomly generated initial population is selected, many population parameters still must be set. These include the number of conditions in the antecedent, the word length for each condition and the action and the probability of selecting a in the randomly generated population.
These issues will be further discussed and actual selections made for this study in the next chapter. The basic interactions between an environment and a classifier system in learning mode as first shown in Figure 3. The classifier system performs many iterations of interaction with the environment receiving feedback allowing the guesses to be ranked. The major cycle shown in Figure 3. The earlier figure did not include the feedback used by the apportionment of credit sub-system to reward or punish the responsible classifier.
As the iterations and epochs increase the quality of the guesses increases. Since general guesses i. With the concept of major cycle and epoch defined, the genetic algorithm flowchart shown in Figure 3. As always, a hypothesis classifier enters the auction when it is pertinent to the situation. For the victorious hypothesis, its destiny is tied to the result of its actions. As epochs pass, successful hypotheses will exchange information via the genetic algorithm.
These offspring will replace disproved hypotheses with more plausible but untested hypotheses. This development of general or default hypotheses and specific or exception hypotheses allows the classifier system to learn gracefully, permitting the handling of novel situations by general hypotheses while providing for exception hypotheses when necessary.
This hierarchy of classifiers is known as default hierarchies and will be further explored in Section 3. As epochs continue and most of the feedback becomes positive, the classifiers may be thought of as more and more validated hypotheses.
Furthermore, when the classifier system can pass criteria to be considered learned, the classifiers may be considered heuristics and rules. Each general rule responds to a broad set of environmental messages, so that just a few rules can cover all possible states of the environment.
Since a general rule may respond in the same way to many inputs that do not really belong in the same category, it will often err. To correct the mistakes made by the general classifiers, lower level, exception rules evolve in the default hierarchy.
The lower level classifiers are more specific than the higher level rules; each exception rule responds to a subset of the situations covered by the more general rule, but it also makes fewer mistakes than the default rules made on those states. Because the antecedent of classifiers can be more or less general by having more or fewer wildcard symbols , default hierarchies are defined implicitly by many sets of classifiers.
These classifiers define a simple three-level default hierarchy, in which the first classifier is the most general, covering four messages, the second is an exception to the first, covering two of those four messages, and the third is an exception to both, covering just one message.
The discussion also added relevant background to modifications to the rudiments which are used by this study. A variety of other additions and variations to the classifier system have been suggested in the literature.
Many of these were investigated but were either found to be ineffectual or found not to be appropriate for this study. Genetic Algorithms have found near optimal solutions in a variety of environments Goldberg []. These examples are stimulus- response S-R systems, searching the space of possible stimulus-response rules.
Except for allocating payoffs directly to the classifiers that produced results, the bucket brigade algorithm as defined by Holland [] did not play a role in these systems. Demonstrated the application of a classifier system to the control of gas flow through Goldberg [] a national pipeline system. Applied classifier systems to learning dynamic planning problems, such as Roberts [] determining plans of movement through artificial environments in search of food.
Used classifier systems to learn to categorize Boolean multiplexer functions. Wilson [] 3. The learning mode performance measures how well the classifier system is learning to perform the correct behavior in an environment. The application mode performance measures the performance of the learned classifier system in handling problems from the same domain but different problems from which it was taught.
Application mode performance is addressed in Chapter 7, where the application mode performance is measured and compared to the performance of other techniques which solve problems in a subset of the environment which the learned classifier can perform.
Pure random search provides a lower bound on the learning mode performance of genetic algorithms and classifier systems; of course, substantial increases in performance over random search must ensue before suggesting that the classifier system is learning.
Therefore, to know that the classifier system is learning the target behavior, various performance metrics are employed. The simplest measure of learning performance is the ratio of the number of correct responses to the total number of responses produced:.
A local measure portrays the present performance level, and is defined as follows:. The shape optimization environment is a situation where a classifier system cannot be expected to find the optimal shape in a single design iteration. At such a point the learning regime must be deemed to have reached, a learned state, or a point of failure.
Accessibility: If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.
Toggle navigation. Log in Toggle navigation. JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it. Search Deep Blue. This collection. Error rate of these is significant on GA with fixed rules, for example, GA Min approaches were compared. To initialize the parameters of helps to reduce error rate by 9. We GA Decision Template is 1.
As these classifiers are different to each other In this paper, we have introduced a method to solve both in their approach, the diversity of the ensemble system is the feature and classifier selection problems in a multi- ensured.
To assess statistical significance, we used paired t- classifier system based on GA. Our aim is to find subset of test to compare two classification results level of classifier and feature set which have more discrimination significance set to 0.
We have A. Experimental classifier system Table I. For feature and classifier set. We suggest using fixed rules as example, GAs on 5 fixed rules, namely Product, Max, Min, fitness function for our model because it helps to save Median and Vote, all post more than 10 wins and 0 loss computation cost while achieving acceptable accuracy.
The results In the future, we plan to explore new fitness functions for of GA on Sum Rule, Decision Template and MLR also show our GA model as well as discover new effective encoding to good performance although they are less remarkable than boost GA performance.
Our objective [1] L. Product achieves the best result, obtaining only 3 losses. GA [2] T. Select Best. In reality, it is difficult to choose a best GA approach for [4] L. Kuncheva, J. Bezdek and R. Based on our experiments, we suggest using fixed Intelligence, vol. Kuncheva and L. Raymer, W. Punch, E. Goodman, L. Kuhn and A. Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. Ting, I. Kittler, M. Hatef, R. Duin and J. Intelligence, vol. Ko, S. Kim and J. Nanni and A.
Sen, H. Letter, vol. Gabrys and D. Structure of a proposed chromosome Fig. Performing crossover on the first part and swapping second part accordingly Fig. Crossover on feature encoding of two classifiers Class 1 Class 2 … Class j
0コメント