Skip to main content
Log in

Learning classifier systems to evolve classification rules for systems of memory constrained components

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Evolutionary Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we study how to solve classification problems in computing systems that consist of distributed, memory constrained components. Interacting Pittsburgh-style Learning Classifier Systems are used to generate sets of classification rules that can be deployed on the components. We show that this approach distributes the knowledge and enables the components to solve complex classification problems in cooperation. We study the structure and properties of the evolved rule sets and analyse the way the components share their knowledge. Moreover, we investigate the influence of different communication topologies and the introduction of communication costs on the emerging patterns of cooperation and on the classification performance of the whole system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abedini M, Kirley M (2009) Coxcs: a coevolutionary learning classifier based on feature space partitioning. In: AI 2009: advances in artificial intelligence, vol 5866 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 360–369

  2. Ang JH, Tan KC, Mamun AA (2010) An evolutionary memetic algorithm for rule extraction. Exp Syst Appl 37(2):1302–1315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bacardit J (2004) Pittsburgh genetics-based machine learning in the data mining era: representations, generalization, and run-time. PhD thesis, Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain

  4. Bacardit J, Garrell JM (2003) Incremental learning for pittsburgh approach classifier systems. In: Proceedings of the segundo congreso espanol de metaheuristicas, algoritmos evolutivos y bioinspirados, pp 303–311

  5. Brooks RR, Ramanathan P, Sayeed AM (2003) Distributed target classification and tracking in sensor networks. Proc IEEE 91(8):1163–1171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bull L (1999) On evolving social systems: communication, speciation and symbiogenesis. Comput Math Org Theory 5(3):281–302

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Cheng X, Xu J, Pei J, Liu J (2010) Hierarchical distributed data classification in wireless sensor networks. Comput Commun 33(15):1404–1413

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cook BW, Lanzisera S, Pister KSJ (2006) SoC issues for RF smart dust. Proc IEEE 94(6):1177–1196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Davis L, Fu C, Wilson SW (2002) An incremental multiplexer problem and its uses in classifier system research. In: IWLCS 01: Revised papers from the 4th international workshop on advances in learning classifier systems, vol 2321 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 23–31

  10. Gershoff M, Schulenburg S (2007) Collective behavior based hierarchical xcs. In: GECCO ‘07: proceedings of the 2007 GECCO conference companion on genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM, New York, pp 2695–2700

  11. Giordana A, Saitta L, Zini F (1994) Learning disjunctive concepts by means of genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference in machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, San Francisco, pp 96–104

  12. Goldberg DE, Deb K (1991) A comparative analysis of selection schemes used in genetic algorithms. In: Rawlins GJE (eds) Foundations of genetic algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, San Francisco, pp 69–93

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hercog LM, Fogarty TC (2002) Co-evolutionary classifier systems for multi-agent simulation. In: CEC ‘02: proceedings of the evolutionary computation on 2002. CEC ‘02. Proceedings of the 2002 congress. Washington, DC, USA, 2002. IEEE Computer Society, pp 1798–1803

  14. Kotsiantis SB (2007) Supervised machine learning: a review of classification techniques. Informatica (Slovenia) 31(3):249–268

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Llora X, Garrell JM (2001) Knowledge-independent data mining with fine-grained parallel evolutionary algorithms. In: Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO 2001). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 461–468

  16. Orriols-Puig A, Casillas J, Bernadó-Mansilla E (2008) Genetic-based machine learning systems are competitive for pattern recognition. Evol Intel 1(3):209–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Potter MA, De Jong KA (2000) Cooperative coevolution: an architecture for evolving coadapted subcomponents. Evol Comput 8(1):1–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Potter MA, De Jong KA, Grefenstette JJ (1995) A coevolutionary approach to learning sequential decision rules. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on genetic algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, San Francisco, pp 366–372

  19. Richter U, Prothmann H, Schmeck H (2008) Improving XCS performance by distribution. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on simulated evolution and learning (SEAL2008), vol 5361 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 111–120

  20. Sanchis A, Molina JM, Isasi P, Segovia J (2000) RTCS: a reactive with tags classifier system. J Intell Robotics Syst 27(4):379–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sigaud O, Wilson SW (2007) Learning classifier systems: a survey. Soft Comput 11(11):1065–1078

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Takadama K, Nakasuka S, Shimohara K (2002) Robustness in organizational-learning oriented classifier system. Soft Comput 6(3-4):229–239

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Tomlinson A, Bull L (2001) Symbiogenesis in learning classifier systems. Artif Life 7(1):33–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tomlinson A, Bull L (2002) An accuracy based corporate classifier system. Soft Comput 6(3-4):200–215

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Urbanowicz RJ, Moore JH (2009) Learning classifier systems: a complete introduction, review, and roadmap. J Artif Evol Appl 2009:1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Warneke B, Last M, Liebowitz B, Pister KSJ (2001) Smart dust: communicating with a cubic-millimeter computer. Comput Aided Design 34:44–51

    Google Scholar 

  27. Weiß G (1994) Hierarchical chunking in classifier systems. In: AAAI‘94: proceedings of the twelfth national conference on artificial intelligence, vol 2. Menlo Park, CA, USA, 1994. American Association for Artificial Intelligence pp 1335–1340

  28. Wilcox JR (1995) Organizational learning within a learning classifier system. Technical report, IlliGAL Report No. 95003, Department of General Engineering, University of Illinoise at Urbana-Champaign

  29. Yick J, Mukherjee B, Ghosal D (2008) Wireless sensor network survey. Comput Netw 52(12):2292–2330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhu F, Guan S-U (2008) Cooperative co-evolution of GA-based classifiers based on input decomposition. Eng Appl Artif Intell 21(8):1360–1369

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) through the project “Organisation and Control of Self-Organising Systems in Technical Compounds” within SPP 1183.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Scheidler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scheidler, A., Middendorf, M. Learning classifier systems to evolve classification rules for systems of memory constrained components. Evol. Intel. 4, 127–143 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-011-0053-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-011-0053-4

Keywords

Navigation