Abstract
In producing an artificial dataset, humans usually play a major role in creating and controlling the problem domain. In particular, humans set up and tune the problem’s difficulty. If humans can set up the difficulty levels appropriately, then learning systems can solve classification tasks successfully. This paper introduces an autonomous classification problem generation approach. The problem’s difficulty is adapted based on the classification agent’s performance within the defined attributes. An automated problem generator has been created to evolve simulated datasets whilst the classification agent, in this case a learning classifier system (LCS), attempts to learn the evolving datasets. The idea here is to tune the problem’s difficulty autonomously such that the problem’s characteristics may be determined effectively. Furthermore, this framework can empirically test the learning bounds of the classification agent whilst lowering human involvement. Initially, tabu search was integrated in the problem generator to discover the best combination of domain features in order to adjust the problem’s difficulty. In order to overcome stagnation in local optimum, a Pittsburgh-style LCSs, A-PLUS, was adapted for the first time to the problem generator. In this way, the effect of the problem’s characteristics, e.g. noise, which alter the classification agent’s performance, becomes human readable. Experiments confirm that the problem generator was able to tune the problem’s difficulty either to make the problem ‘harder’ or ‘easier’ so that it can either ‘increase’ or ‘decrease’ the classification agent’s performance.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Azuaje F (2003) A computational evolutionary approach to evolving game strategy and cooperation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 33(3):498–503
Bacardit J (2004) Pittsburgh Genetics-based machine learning in the data mining era: representations, generalization, and run-time. PhD thesis, University of Ramon Llull
Bacardit J, Butz M (2007) Data mining in learning classifier systems: comparing XCS with GAssist. In: Kovacs T, Llorà X, Takadama K, Lanzi PL, Stolzmann W, Wilson SW (eds) Learning Classifier Systems, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), vol 4399. Springer, Berlin, pp 282–290
Bernado E, Garrell J (2003) Accuracy-based learning classifier systems: models, analysis and applications to classification tasks. Evol Comput 11(3):209–238
Bernadó-Mansilla NME, Orriols-Puig A (2008) Preliminary approach on synthetic data sets generation based on class separability measure. In: The 8th international conference on pattern recognition (ICPR 2008). IEEE Xplore, pp 1–4
Bishop CM (2006) Pattern recognition and machine learning. Springer, Berlin
Butz M (2005) Kernel-based, ellipsoidal conditions in the real-valued XCS classifier system. In: Genetic evolutionary computational conference (GECCO 2005). ACM
Butz M (2006) Rule-based evolutionary online learning systems: a principal approach to LCS analysis and design. Springer, Berlin
Catalin S, Ruxandra S, Preuss M, Dumitrescu D (2008) Coevolution for classification. Technical report, ISSN 1433-3325, Technical University of Dortmund, Department of Computer Science/LS 2, 44221 Dortmund, Germany
Congdon C (1995) A comparison of genetic algorithms and other machine learning systems of a complex classification task from common disease research. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Michigan, USA
Farahmand AM et al (2010) Interaction of culture-based learning and cooperative co-evolution and its application to automatic behavior-based system design. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 14(1):23–57
Gendreau M (2000) A tutorial on the tabu search. Department of Computer Science, de Montreal University, Canada
Harrison ML, Foster JA (2004) Co-evolving faults to improve the fault tolerance of sorting networks. In: EuroGP, pp 57–66
Himmelstein DS, Greene CS, Moore JH (2011) Evolving hard problems: generating human genetics datasets with a complex etiology. BioData Min 4:21
Ho TK, Basu M (2002) Complexity measure of supervised classification problems. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 24(2002(3):289–300
Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, artificial intelligence. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, IL, pp 313–329
Huang C-Y, Sun C-T (2004) Parameter adaptation within co-adaptive learning classifier systems. In: GECCO ’04, pp 774–784
Iqbal M, Browne WN, Zhang M (2012) XCSR with computed continuous action. In: Australisian AI 2012. Springer, Berlin, pp 350–361
Jiadong Yang PJ, Hua Xu (2012) Effective search for Pittsburgh learning classifier systems via estimation of distribution algorithms. Inf Sci 198:100–117
Jong J, Viezzer M, Kain S (2004) Coevolution for classification. Technical report White Paper SSP041001, Thales Research and Technology (UK) Limited, Worton Drive, Worton Grange, Reading, Berkshire, RG2 0SB, UK
Kharbat F, Bull L, Odeh M (2005) Revisiting genetic selection in the XCS learning classifier system. In: The 2005 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, 2005, vol 3, pp 2061–2068
Kovacs T (2000) Strength or accuracy? Fitness calculation in learning classifier system. In: Lanzi PL, Stolzmann W, Wilson SW (eds) Learning Classifier Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), vol 1813. Springer, Berlin, pp 143–160
Kovacs T (2004) Rule fitness and pathology in learning classifier systems. Springer, London
Kushida J, Taniguchi N, Hoshino Y, Kamei K (2007) A coevolutionary system for development of strategies in poker game. In: Second international conference on innovative computing, information and control (ICICIC ’07). IEEE, p 401
Lanzi PL, Riolo RL (2000) A roadmap to the last decade of learning classifier system research (from 1989 to 1999). In: Lanzi PL, Stolzmann W, Wilson SW (eds) Learning Classifier Systems , Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), vol 1813. Springer, Berlin, pp 33–61
Llorà X, i Guiu JMG (2002) Coevolving Different knowledge representations with fine-grained parallel learning classifier systems. In: GECCO ’02, pp 934–941
Luke S (2010) Essentials of metaheuristics: a set of undergraduate lecture notes. Department of Computer Science, George Mason University, Fairfax VA
Macià N, Orriols-Puig A, Bernadó-Mansilla E (2008) Genetic-based synthetic data sets for the analysis of classifiers behavior. In: The 8th international conference on hybrid intelligent systems. IEEE Xplore, pp 507–512
Macià N, Orriols-Puig A, Bernadó-Mansilla E (2009) Beyond homemade artificial data sets. Hybrid artif intell syst 5572:605–612
Mani A, Michael K (2009) CoXCS: a coevolutionary learning classifier based on feature space partitioning. In: AI 2009: advances in artificial intelligence, volume 5866 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS). Springer, Berlin, pp 360–369
Marzukhi S, Browne WN, Zhang M (2012) Two-cornered learning classifier systems for pattern generation and classification. In: The 12th genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO 2012). ACM, pp 895–902
Michalewicz Z, Fogel D (2000) How to solve it: modern heuristics. Springer, Berlin
Orriols-Puig A, Casillas J, Bernadó-Mansilla E (2008) Genetic-based machine learning systems are competitive for pattern recognition. Evol Intell 1:209–232
Potter MA, Jong KAD (1994) A cooperative coevolutionary approach to function optimization. In: PPSN, pp 249–257
Potter MA, Jong KAD (2000) Cooperative coevolution: an architecture for evolving ccoadapted subcomponents. Evol Comput 8(1):1–29
Potter MA, Jong KAD, Grefenstette JJ (1995) A coevolutionary approach to learning sequential decision rules. In: ICGA, pp 366–372
Schürmann J (1996) Pattern classification: a unified view of statistical and neural approaches. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ
Scott PD, Wilkins E (1999) Evaluating data mining procedures: techniques for generating artificial data sets. Inf Softw Technol 41(9):579–587
Sigaud O, Wilson SW (2007) Learning classifier systems: a survey. Soft Comput 11(11):1065–1078
Smith S (1980) A learning system based on genetic algorithms. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Sood NP, Williams AG, De Jong KA (2005) Evaluating the XCS learning classifier system in competitive simultaneous learning environments. In: Proceedings of the 2005 workshops on genetic and evolutionary computation, GECCO ’05, pp 112–118
Stacey A (2004) An investigation of techniques for improving the performance of the Pittsburgh LCS. Technical report UWELCSG04-005, Department o Computer Science, University of Bath, United Kingdom
Troc M, Unold O (2010) Self-adaptation of parameters in a learning classifier system ensemble machine. Appl Math Comput Sci 20(1):157–174
Unold O (2010) Self-adaptive learning classifier system. J Circuits Syst Comput 19(1):275–296
Urbanowicz R, Moore J (2009) Review article learning classifier systems: a complete introduction, review, and roadmap. J Artif Evol Appl 2009:1–25
Weigand R, Liles W, Jong KD (2002) Analyzing cooperative coevolution with evolutionary game theory. In: Congress on evolutionary computation 2002 (CEC’02). IEEE, pp 1600–1605
Wen Y, Xu H (2011) A cooperative coevolution-based pittsburgh learning classifier system embedded with memtic feature selection. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, pp 2415–2422
Wiegand RP, Liles WC, Jong KAD (2002) Modeling variation in cooperative coevolution using evolutionary game theory. In: FOGA, pp 203–220
Wilson S (1995) Classifier fitness based on accuracy. Evol Comput 3(2):149–175
Wilson S (2000) Get real! XCS with continuous-valued inputs. In: Learning classifier systems (IWLCS 1999), vol 1813 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS). IEEE, Springer, Berlin, pp 209–219
Wilson S (2009) Coevolution of pattern generators and recognizers. In: GECCO ’09. ACM, New York
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marzukhi, S., Browne, W.N. & Zhang, M. Adaptive artificial datasets through learning classifier systems for classification tasks. Evol. Intel. 6, 93–107 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-013-0094-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-013-0094-y