Evolutionary Intelligence

, Volume 8, Issue 2–3, pp 71–87 | Cite as

Rule reduction by selection strategy in XCS with adaptive action map

  • Masaya Nakata
  • Pier Luca Lanzi
  • Keiki Takadama
Special Issue


The XCS classifier system is a rule-based evolutionary machine learning system. XCS evolves classifiers in order to learn generalized solutions. The XCS with adaptive action mapping (XCSAM) is inherited from XCS, which evolves a best action map where it evolves classifiers that advocate the best action in every state. Accordingly, XCSAM can potentially evolve solutions that are more compact than XCS, which in contrast focuses on a complete action map. Previous experimental results however have shown that, in some problems, XCSAM may produce solutions with more classifiers than XCS. In this paper, we initially show that the original fitness-based selection strategy of XCS produces non effective classifiers which are not likely to be in the best action map (i.e., they are inaccurate ones or do not have best actions) in XCSAM. Then, we introduce a new selection strategy for XCSAM that promotes the evolution of classifiers advocating the best action map and thus produces more compact solutions. The new strategy selects classifiers based both on their fitness (like XCS) and on the parameter optimality of action of XCSAM. The result is a pressure towards classifiers that are accurate and advocate the best actions. We present analyses showing that the new selection strategy successfully enables XCSAM to focus on classifiers having best actions. Our experimental results show that XCSAM with the new selection strategy (called XCSAM-SS) can evolve smaller solutions than XCS (and the original XCSAM) both in single-step and multi-step problems. As a consequence, XCSAM can also learn with smaller iterations than XCS in the single-step problem. Our conclusion is that, as the best action map potentially has a compact solution, XCSAM evolves a much compact solution than XCS by adding an adequate selection strategy.


Learning classifier system XCS XCSAM Rule-reduction 



This work was supported by the JSPS Institutional Program.


  1. 1.
    Bernadó-mansilla E, Garrell-Guiu JM (2003) Accuracy-based learning classifier systems: models, analysis and applications to classification tasks. Evol Comput 11(3):209–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bull L, Bernadó-Mansilla E, Holmes JH (eds) (2008) Learning classifier systems in data mining, volume 125 of Studies in computational intelligence. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bull L, Lanzi PL (2009) Introduction to the special issue on learning classifier systems. Nat Comput 8(1):1–2CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Butz MV, Kovacs T, Lanzi PL, Wilson SW (2004) Toward a theory of generalization and learning in XCS. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 8(1):28–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Butz MV (2006) Rule-based evolutionary online learning systems. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Butz MV, Goldberg DE, Lanzi PL (2005) Gradient descent methods in learning classifier systems: improving XCS performance in multistep problems. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 9(5):452–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Butz MV, Goldberg DE, Tharakunnel K (2003) Analysis and improvement of fitness exploitation in XCS: bounding models, tournament selection, and bilateral accuracy. Evol Comput 11(3):239–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Butz MV, Lanzi PL, Wilson SW (2008) Function approximation with XCS: hyperellipsoidal conditions, recursive least squares, and compaction. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 12(3):355–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Butz MV, Wilson SW (2002) An algorithmic description of XCS. Soft Comput 6(3–4):144–153CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dixon PW, Corne DW, Oates MJ (2004) Encouraging compact rulesets from XCS for enhanced data mining. In: Bull L (ed) Applications of learning classifier systems, studies in fuzziness and soft computing, vol 150. Springer, Berlin, pp 92–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dixon PW, Corne D, Oates MJ (2002) A preliminary investigation of modified XCS as a generic data mining tool. In:  Lanzi PL, Stolzmann W, Wilson SW (eds) Revised papers from the 4th international workshop on advances in learning classifier systems, IWLCS ’01, Springer, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dixon PW, Corne DW, Oates MJ (2003) A ruleset reduction algorithm for the XCS learning classifier system. In: Learning classifier systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 20–29Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ebadi T, Zhang M, Browne W (2012) XCS-based versus UCS-based feature pattern classification system. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on genetic and evolutionary computation conference, ACM, pp 839–846Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, pptimization, and machine learning. Addison Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Katagami D, Yamada S (2000) Interactive classifier system for real robot learning. In: Proceedings of 9th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, 2000. RO-MAN 2000. IEEE, pp 258–263Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kharbat F, Bull L, Odeh M (2007) Mining breast cancer data with XCS. In: Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO2007), pp 2066–2073Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kovacs T (1996) Evolving optimal populations with XCS classifier systems. Technical report CSR-96-17 and CSRP-96-17, School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UKGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kovacs T (2000) Strength or accuracy? Fitness calculation in learning classifier systems. In: Lanzi PL, Stolzmann W, Wilson SW (eds) Learning classifier systems, volume 1813 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, pp 143–160Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lanzi PL (1999) An analysis of generalization in the XCS classifier system. Evol Comput 7(2):125–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Loiacono D, Orriols-Puig A, Urbanowicz R (2012) Special issue on advances in learning classifier systems. Evol Intel 5(2):57–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nakata M, Kovacs T, Takadama K (2014) A modified XCS classifier system for sequence labeling. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, GECCO 2014. ACM, pp 565–572Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nakata M, Lanzi PL, Takadama K (2012) Enhancing learning capabilities by XCS with best action mapping. Parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN XII), pp 256–265Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nakata M, Lanzi PL, Takadama K (2012) XCS with adaptive action mapping. The ninth international conference on simulated evolution and learning (SEAL 2012), pp 256–265Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nakata M, Lanzi PL, Takadama K (2013) Selection strategy for XCS with adaptive action mapping. In: Proceedings of the 15th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, GECCO ’13, New York, NY, USA. ACM, pp 1085–1092Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nakata M, Lanzi PL, Takadama K (2014) Evolving best action maps in accuracy-based reinforcement learning classifier system. Evol Comput (submitted)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Orriols-Puig A, Bernadó-Mansilla E (2005) Class imbalance problem in UCS classifier system: fitness adaptation. In: CEC2005, vol 1, pp 604–611. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Orriols-Puig A, Bernadó-Mansilla E (2009) Evolutionary rule-based systems for imbalanced data sets. Soft Comput 13(3):213–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shafi K, Abbass HA, Zhu Weiping (2007) Real time signature extraction from a supervised classifier system. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary Computation. CEC 2007, pp 2509–2516Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shafi K, Urbanowicz R, Iqbal M (2013) Special issue on advances in learning classifier systems. Evol Intel 6(2):55–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sutton RS, Barto AG (1998) Reinforcement learning—an introduction. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wilson SW (1995) Classifier fitness based on accuracy. Evol Comput 3(2):149–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wilson SW (2002) Compact rulesets from XCSI. In:  Lanzi PL, Stolzmann W, Wilson SW (eds) Advances in learning classifier systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zang Z, Li D, Wang J (2013) Knowledge extraction and rule set compaction in XCS for non-Markov multi-step problems. Evol Intel 6(1):41–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Masaya Nakata
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pier Luca Lanzi
    • 3
  • Keiki Takadama
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of InformaticsThe University of Electro-CommunicationsChofuJapan
  2. 2.Japan Society for the Promotion of ScienceChiyoda-kuJapan
  3. 3.Department of Electronics and InformationPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations