Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Fuzzy-UCS Revisited: Self-Adaptation of Rule Representations in Michigan-Style Learning Fuzzy-Classifier Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes Adaptive-UCS, a Fuzzy-UCS variant in which each rule condition carries an evolved fuzzy indicator that switches between crisp rectangular and fuzzy triangular membership, and claims this self-adapting representation…

desk verdict A genuine but modest extension of Fuzzy-UCS whose headline claim runs ahead of the experiments: the gains are real on average, but the self-adaptation mechanism is not isolated from a changed theta_overlap and a simpler representation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06017 v1 pith:IYZJZ4O3 submitted 2025-05-09 cs.LG

Hiroki Shiraishi , Yohei Hayamizu , Tomonori Hashiyama This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords LearningFuzzy-ClassifierSystemsFuzzy-UCSAdaptive-UCSself-adaptiverulerepresentationfuzzyindicatorcrisp-hyperrectangularrulesfuzzy-hypertrapezoidalsupervised
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to establish that a Michigan-style learning classifier system does not have to commit in advance to either crisp or fuzzy rules. Adaptive-UCS adds a Boolean fuzzy indicator to each rule condition; when the indicator is 0 the condition is a rectangular interval, when it is 1 it is a triangular fuzzy set, and the indicator is inherited, crossed over, and mutated along with the rule's numeric parameters. On three synthetic checkerboard-style benchmarks and twenty real-world classification datasets, the paper reports that Adaptive-UCS attains higher average test accuracy than both conventional crisp-hyperrectangular UCS and fuzzy-hypertrapezoidal Fuzzy-UCS, with no penalty in ruleset size. It also reports stable accuracy when inputs are noisy or attributes are missing. If the claim holds, users of such systems would no longer have to guess whether a problem wants crisp or fuzzy rule shapes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the fuzzy indicator $\mathcal{F}_i$ attached to every condition of every rule, combined with the center-spread encoding $A_i=(c_i,s_i)$. The indicator selects the membership function shape, and because it is subject to the same crossover and mutation as the numeric parameters, the evolutionary process explores which dimensions should be crisp and which should be fuzzy. Around this sits the rest of the Fuzzy-UCS machinery, including match sets, correct sets, fitness based on class weights, the accuracy-based genetic algorithm, and a subsumption-with-merge operator whose is-more-general test uses an overlap ratio $\theta_{\text{overlap}}$ when either condition is fuzzy. The result is that a single rule template can represent up to $2^n$ combinations of crisp and fuzzy regions.

What would settle it

Train Adaptive-UCS with every fuzzy indicator frozen to 0 (crisp-only) and, separately, frozen to 1 (fuzzy-only) on the same checkerboard and real-world datasets. If either frozen version matches the full Adaptive-UCS accuracy, the reported gains come from the fixed representation rather than from evolving the indicator. Alternatively, rerun Fuzzy-UCS with $\theta_{\text{overlap}}$ set to $0.5$ instead of $0.8$; if it closes the gap, the relaxed subsumption threshold, not shape self-adaptation, explains the difference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, on the paper's own terms, is that the representational choice between crisp and fuzzy rule conditions can be optimized by the same evolutionary loop that learns the rules. Adaptive-UCS represents each condition by a center and spread, $A_i=(c_i,s_i)$, plus a fuzzy indicator $\mathcal{F}_i\in\{0,1\}$: with $\mathcal{F}_i=0$ the membership function is rectangular, giving an all-or-nothing match inside $[c_i-s_i,c_i+s_i]$; with $\mathcal{F}_i=1$ it is an isosceles triangle peaking at $c_i$, giving a graded match. The fuzzy indicator is crossed over and mutated along with $c_i$ and $s_i$, so a single ruleset can contain crisp and fuzzy conditions in any mixture and the system itself finds the mixture a problem needs. The paper's experiments show Adaptive-UCS at the best average rank on both synthetic and real-world benchmarks, with its largest margins on problems where class boundaries are oblique, inputs are noisy, or attributes are missing. The authors conclude that self-adapting two simple membership shapes can beat both fixed representations.

Load-bearing premise

That the comparison is fair: all three systems use hyperparameters taken from earlier papers, and Adaptive-UCS's one described deviation, $\theta_{\text{overlap}}=0.5$ instead of Fuzzy-UCS's $0.8$, is not itself responsible for the accuracy gains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, a designer no longer needs to choose between crisp and fuzzy rule representations before training; Adaptive-UCS can search that choice itself for a given dataset.
  • On problems with mixed geometry, where some features have sharp boundaries and others have gradual ones, self-adaptation should beat any single fixed shape, which is exactly the pattern the paper reports on oblique-boundary and noisy benchmarks.
  • The ruleset-size results in the paper indicate that representational flexibility does not come at the price of larger or more redundant rule sets.
  • Because the fuzzy indicator is independent of the learning task, the mechanism is claimed to transfer to other learning classifier systems, such as XCS for reinforcement learning or XCSF for function approximation.
  • For data with noise or missing values, the paper implies that the system can fall back on fuzzy conditions where needed and crisp conditions elsewhere, giving stable test accuracy instead of overfitting.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: freezing every fuzzy indicator to 0 or to 1 would isolate how much of the gain comes from the evolutionary search over shapes; the paper reports only the full self-adaptive system, so this ablation is a natural test.
  • Beyond the paper: the per-dimension indicators could be read after training as a map of where a dataset actually needs graded boundaries, turning the mechanism into a diagnostic tool for feature geometry.
  • Beyond the paper: the reported accuracy gap may partly reflect the relaxed $\theta_{\text{overlap}}=0.5$ subsumption threshold used only for Adaptive-UCS; a controlled sweep over $\theta_{\text{overlap}}$ for both systems would separate the representation effect from the subsumption effect.
  • Beyond the paper: extending the indicator alphabet to more than two shapes, such as trapezoids or Gaussian membership functions, is not covered by the experiments, and the paper's argument that simpler shapes suffice is a conjecture about where the complexity-optimizability trade-off sits.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. Adaptive-UCS is a Michigan-style supervised learning classifier system that extends Fuzzy-UCS by adding a binary fuzzy indicator F_i to each rule condition dimension. Each dimension is represented by a center c_i and spread s_i, and F_i selects either a rectangular (crisp) or triangular (fuzzy) membership function. The indicator is inherited, crossed over, and mutated along with the continuous parameters. The paper compares Adaptive-UCS with UCS (crisp hyperrectangles) and Fuzzy-UCS (hypertrapezoids) on three synthetic checkerboard problems (CB, RCB, NCB) and 20 real-world datasets, reporting accuracy and ruleset size from 30 runs with ANOVA/Welch and post-hoc tests. The central claim is that Adaptive-UCS outperforms both baselines in classification accuracy and is robust to noise and missing values.

Significance. Validating the core claim would be useful: automatic per-rule selection between crisp and fuzzy conditions addresses a known limitation of fixed rule representations in LCSs, and the two-parameter condition keeps the search space smaller than the hypertrapezoidal representation. The paper's empirical discipline is a strength: 30 independent trials, multiple benchmarks, and appropriate parametric/non-parametric statistical procedures. However, the experiments do not currently isolate the proposed mechanism from a changed comparison hyperparameter, and the abstract's unqualified superiority statement is stronger than the per-dataset results in Table 2. The contribution is potentially publishable, but the evidence needs strengthening and the claims need qualification.

major comments (3)
  1. [5.2, Eq. (8)] Section 5.2 sets Adaptive-UCS identical to Fuzzy-UCS "except theta_overlap = 0.5", while Fuzzy-UCS uses 0.8. Because Eq. (8) uses theta_overlap to decide whether a candidate subsumer is more general, the two systems differ in subsumption and generality pressure, not only in the adaptive membership function. Table 1 shows that Adaptive-UCS yields smaller rulesets than Fuzzy-UCS in all three benchmark problems, which is consistent with a changed subsumption threshold. To attribute the accuracy gains to evolving F, the authors should either run all systems under a sweep of theta_overlap, or add ablations of Adaptive-UCS with F fixed to all-crisp, all-fuzzy, and random-but-static values under otherwise identical settings.
  2. [Abstract; Table 2] The abstract's claim that Adaptive-UCS "outperforms other UCSs ... in classification accuracy" is not supported as a blanket statement. In Table 2, Adaptive-UCS test accuracy is lower than UCS on Horse colic (59.63 vs 61.39) and lower than Fuzzy-UCS on Soybean (59.90 vs 68.48) and Wisconsin prognostic breast-cancer (68.25 vs 72.81), and Section 6.2 explicitly acknowledges underperformance on some datasets. The claim should be restricted to average rank or to the majority of datasets, with the exceptions reported in the abstract and conclusion.
  3. [4.4.2, Eq. (7); 6.2] The mechanism is advertised as self-adaptive, but Eq. (7) flips F_i with no dependence on any local gradient or feedback, and the paper never reports the distribution of evolved F values or compares against non-evolved F baselines. As a result, the paper does not currently demonstrate that evolutionary optimization of F, rather than the changed representation palette alone, is responsible for the reported gains. An analysis of the final F distribution per problem, together with the ablation described in the first major comment, would close this gap.
minor comments (5)
  1. [5.2] The text "One-Way ANOV Aand Tukey-HSD" contains a typo: "ANOVA" and the spacing should be corrected; also, "homoscedasticity was positive/negative" would be clearer as "the null hypothesis of equal variances was rejected/not rejected".
  2. [Abstract] The phrase "frequently need help addressing problems" is awkward and likely means "often struggle to address"; consider rewording.
  3. [Tables 1 and 2] The color shading used to indicate best and worst groups may not survive grayscale printing; adding textual markers such as bold plus asterisks would improve accessibility.
  4. [4.4.2, Eq. (6)] The condition "no cross. has taken place" is abbreviated; spell out "no crossover has taken place" for clarity.
  5. [General] The paper does not state whether the source code is available; sharing code would aid reproducibility and is encouraged.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the accuracy claim is an empirical benchmark comparison, not a fitted constant or self-citation argument.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical system paper with no formal derivation whose target could be defined into existence. The fuzzy indicator F is introduced as a new rule parameter, and the claimed superiority is established by measured benchmark accuracy and ruleset-size results against external baselines with hyperparameters taken from prior work. The fuzzy indicator is not fitted to the test data: it is initialized randomly in Eq. (4) and evolved through mutation in Eq. (7), so the reported gains are not a by-construction consequence of a fitted parameter. The one setup discrepancy, 'Adaptive-UCS was set as in Fuzzy-UCS, except theta_overlap = 0.5' (Section 5.2), changes the subsumption generality condition in Eq. (8) and could confound attributing the gains to self-adaptation, but that is a hyperparameter choice, not an input-equivalent definition of the target result. The same-author citations (e.g., refs. 34-36) are contextual descriptions of prior XCS variants and are not load-bearing for the Adaptive-UCS accuracy claim. No self-definitional step, fitted-input-as-prediction step, uniqueness-import step, or ansatz-smuggled-via-citation step is present. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity, even though the comparison may have empirical confounds.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper makes no theoretical derivation; it is an empirical algorithmic proposal. The central claim rests on standard fuzzy logic definitions, the design assumption that existing GA credit assignment can optimize the new indicator, and on comparison hyperparameters. The main free parameter of concern is theta_overlap, which differs between Adaptive-UCS and Fuzzy-UCS without sensitivity analysis.

free parameters (4)
  • theta_overlap (Adaptive-UCS) = 0.5
    Set to 0.5 for Adaptive-UCS while Fuzzy-UCS uses 0.8 (Section 5.2); affects subsumption and merge, no sensitivity analysis, so part of the reported gain could depend on this choice.
  • r0 (initial spread at covering) = 0.2 benchmark; 1 real-world
    Takes standard values from prior UCS work; for Adaptive-UCS it controls initial rule size and is set to maximum in Section 6.1 to avoid cover-delete cycles.
  • m0 (mutation magnitude) = 0.1
    Standard from prior research; bounds center and spread mutations in Eqs. (5)-(6).
  • nu and acc0/F0 for NCB problem = nu=1, acc0=0.95/F0=0.95
    Changed for the noisy benchmark for all systems following [45,47]; this is a comparison-specific adjustment, not a fitted constant.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Product t-norm for matching degree
    Matching degree is computed as product of per-dimension memberships (Section 3.1, Eq. (2)); inherited from Fuzzy-UCS.
  • domain assumption Missing input attributes are assigned membership 1
    Section 3.1 states unknown x_i yields mu=1; this treats missing values as fully compatible, which is an assumption about missingness.
  • domain assumption The GA fitness and selection in Fuzzy-UCS provide sufficient evolutionary pressure to optimize the fuzzy indicator
    Section 4.4 defines mutation and crossover for F, but the paper does not analyze or measure whether F converges or oscillates; it assumes selection will favor useful representations.
  • ad hoc to paper Theta-based subsumption prevents over-generalization
    The is-more-general operator (Eq. 8) with theta_overlap and the merge restriction to both-triangular (Section 4.5.2) are design choices made to avoid over-generalization, not derived from theory.
invented entities (1)
  • fuzzy indicator F_i
    purpose: Per-dimension binary flag that chooses rectangular (crisp) or triangular (fuzzy) membership for each rule condition; evolved by GA.
    It is an algorithmic construct, not an external entity; its only support is the system's accuracy results on benchmarks and datasets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fuzzy-UCS Revisited: Self-Adaptation of Rule Representations in Michigan-Style Learning Fuzzy-Classifier Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IYZJZ4O3

@misc{pith2026250506017,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fuzzy-UCS Revisited: Self-Adaptation of Rule Representations in Michigan-Style Learning Fuzzy-Classifier Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IYZJZ4O3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06017}
}
read the original abstract

This paper focuses on the impact of rule representation in Michigan-style Learning Fuzzy-Classifier Systems (LFCSs) on its classification performance. A well-representation of the rules in an LFCS is crucial for improving its performance. However, conventional rule representations frequently need help addressing problems with unknown data characteristics. To address this issue, this paper proposes a supervised LFCS (i.e., Fuzzy-UCS) with a self-adaptive rule representation mechanism, entitled Adaptive-UCS. Adaptive-UCS incorporates a fuzzy indicator as a new rule parameter that sets the membership function of a rule as either rectangular (i.e., crisp) or triangular (i.e., fuzzy) shapes. The fuzzy indicator is optimized with evolutionary operators, allowing the system to search for an optimal rule representation. Results from extensive experiments conducted on continuous space problems demonstrate that Adaptive-UCS outperforms other UCSs with conventional crisp-hyperrectangular and fuzzy-hypertrapezoidal rule representations in classification accuracy. Additionally, Adaptive-UCS exhibits robustness in the case of noisy inputs and real-world problems with inherent uncertainty, such as missing values, leading to stable classification performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06017 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. A fuzzy set 𝐴𝑖 = (𝑐𝑖 , 𝑠𝑖) in Adaptive-UCS. The mem￾bership function of 𝐴𝑖 is self-adapted based on the fuzzy indicator F𝑖 ∈ B. This representation is equivalent to the center-spread hyperrectan￾gular representation [52] in which the crisp-hyperrectangular rule condition is described by a combination of the center 𝒄 and the spread 𝒔. Conversely, the fuzzy set 𝐴 𝑘 𝑖 of rule 𝑘 in F 𝑘 𝑖 = 1 (i.e., fuzzy) is represented… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Matching degree landscapes of the 2D rules 𝜇! 𝜎! 𝜇! 𝜇! + 𝜎! 𝑐𝑙"#$ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. An example of how merge mechanism works in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: UCS vs. Fuzzy-UCS vs. Adaptive-UCS on all problems in Experiment 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) is the RCB problem, and (b)-(d) show landscapes of inference classes output by the system after training. In the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) is the NCB problem, and (b)-(d) show landscapes of inference classes output by the system after training. In the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Muhammad Hassan Arif, Jianxin Li, and Muhammad Iqbal. 2017. Solving Social Media Text Classification Problems Using Code Fragment-Based XCSR. In 2017 IEEE 29th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI) . 485–492. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTAI.2017.00080

    work page arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    Garrell-Guiu

    Ester Bernadó-Mansilla and Josep M. Garrell-Guiu. 2003. Accuracy-Based Learning Classifier Systems: Models, Analysis and Applications to Classifi- cation Tasks. Evolutionary Computation 11, 3 (sep 2003), 209–238. https: //doi.org/10.1162/106365603322365289

    work page doi:10.1162/106365603322365289 2003

  3. [3]

    Bishop and Marcus Gallagher

    Jordan T. Bishop and Marcus Gallagher. 2020. Optimality-Based Analysis of XCSF Compaction in Discrete Reinforcement Learning. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature – PPSN XVI: 16th International Conference, PPSN 2020, Leiden, The Netherlands, September 5-9, 2020, Proceedings, Part II (Leiden, The Netherlands). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 471–48...

    doi:10.1007/978-3-030- 2020

  4. [4]

    Bishop, Marcus Gallagher, and Will N

    Jordan T. Bishop, Marcus Gallagher, and Will N. Browne. 2021. A Genetic Fuzzy System for Interpretable and Parsimonious Reinforcement Learning Policies. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion (Lille, France) (GECCO ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1630–1638. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449...

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Andrea Bonarini. 2000. An Introduction to Learning Fuzzy Classifier Systems. In Learning Classifier Systems, Pier Luca Lanzi, Wolfgang Stolzmann, and Stewart W. Wilson (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 83–104. https: //doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45027-0_4

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-45027-0_4 2000

  6. [6]

    Larry Bull and Toby O’Hara. 2002. Accuracy-Based Neuro and Neuro-Fuzzy Classifier Systems. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (New York City, New York) (GECCO’02). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 905–911

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    M.V. Butz, T. Kovacs, P.L. Lanzi, and S.W. Wilson. 2004. Toward a theory of gen- eralization and learning in XCS. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 8, 1 (Feb 2004), 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2003.818194

    work page arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    Butz, Pier Luca Lanzi, and Stewart W

    Martin V. Butz, Pier Luca Lanzi, and Stewart W. Wilson. 2008. Function Approx- imation With XCS: Hyperellipsoidal Conditions, Recursive Least Squares, and Compaction. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 12, 3 (June 2008), 355–376. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2007.903551

    work page arXiv 2008

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Butz, Kumara Sastry, and David E

    Martin V. Butz, Kumara Sastry, and David E. Goldberg. 2003. Tournament Se- lection: Stable Fitness Pressure in XCS. In Genetic and Evolutionary Computa- tion — GECCO 2003 . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1857–1869. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45110-2_83

    2003 doi

  2. [10]

    Jorge Casillas, Brian Carse, and Larry Bull. 2007. Fuzzy-XCS: A Michigan Genetic Fuzzy System. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 15, 4 (Aug 2007), 536–550. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2007.900904

    2007

  3. [11]

    Gang Chen, Colin I. J. Douch, and Mengjie Zhang. 2016. Accuracy-Based Learning Classifier Systems for Multistep Reinforcement Learning: A Fuzzy Logic Approach to Handling Continuous Inputs and Learning Continuous Ac- tions. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 20, 6 (...

    2016

  4. [12]

    İlkay Çinar, Murat Koklu, and Şakir Taşdemir. 2020. Classification of raisin grains using machine vision and artificial intelligence methods.Gazi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi 6, 3 (12 2020), 200–209. https://doi.org/10.30855/gmbd.2020.03.03

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    Dam, Hussein A

    Hai H. Dam, Hussein A. Abbass, and Chris Lokan. 2005. Be real! XCS with continuous-valued inputs. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Workshop on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (Washington, D.C.) (GECCO ’05). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 85–87. ht...

    2005

  6. [14]

    Dempster

    Arthur P. Dempster. 1967. Upper and Lower Probabilities Induced by a Multi- valued Mapping. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 38, 2 (1967), 325 – 339. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177698950

    1967

  7. [15]

    Dheeru Dua and Casey Graff. 2017. UCI Machine Learning Repository. http: //archive.ics.uci.edu/ml

    2017

  8. [16]

    Rahma Ferjani, Lilia Rejeb, Chedi Abdelkarim, and Lamjed Ben Said. 2022. Evi- dential Supervised Classifier System: A New Learning Classifier System Dealing with Imperfect Information. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (2022), 1–22. https://doi....

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Goldberg

    David E. Goldberg. 1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning (1st ed.). Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., USA

    1989

  10. [18]

    César Guevara and Matilde Santos. 2021. Intelligent models for movement detection and physical evolution of patients with hip surgery. Logic Journal of the IGPL 29, 6 (2021), 874–888. https://doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/jzaa032

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Michael Heider, Helena Stegherr, Jonathan Wurth, Roman Sraj, and Jörg Hähner

  12. [20]

    John H Holland. 1986. Escaping Brittleness: The possibilities of general-purpose learning algorithms applied to parallel rule-based systems. Machine learning, an artificial intelligence approach 2 (1986), 593–623

    1986

  13. [21]

    Browne, and Mengjie Zhang

    Muhammad Iqbal, Will N. Browne, and Mengjie Zhang. 2014. Reusing Building Blocks of Extracted Knowledge to Solve Complex, Large-Scale Boolean Problems. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 18, 4 (2014), 465–480. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2013.2281537

    2014

  14. [22]

    Hisao Ishibuchi and Takashi Yamamoto. 2005. Rule weight specification in fuzzy rule-based classification systems. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 13, 4 (Aug 2005), 428–435. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2004.841738

    2005

  15. [23]

    Murat Koklu, Ramazan Kursun, Yavuz Selim Taspinar, and Ilkay Cinar. 2021. Clas- sification of date fruits into genetic varieties using image analysis. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2021 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/4793293

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    Pier Luca Lanzi and Stewart W. Wilson. 2006. Using Convex Hulls to Represent Classifier Conditions. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (Seattle, Washington, USA) (GECCO ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, US...

    2006

  17. [25]

    Browne, and Bing Xue

    Yi Liu, Will N. Browne, and Bing Xue. 2020. Absumption and Subsumption Based Learning Classifier Systems. In Proceedings of the 2020 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (Cancún, Mexico) (GECCO ’20). Association for Comput- ing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 368–376....

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Masaya Nakata and Will N. Browne. 2021. Learning Optimality Theory for Accuracy-Based Learning Classifier Systems. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 25, 1 (Feb 2021), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2020.2994314

    2021

  19. [27]

    Masaya Nakata, Pier Luca Lanzi, and Keiki Takadama. 2013. Simple compact genetic algorithm for XCS. In 2013 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation . 1718–1723. https://doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2013.6557768

    2013

  20. [28]

    Masaya Nakata and Keiki Takadama. 2018. An Empirical Analysis of Action Map in Learning Classifier Systems. SICE Journal of Control, Measurement, and System Integration 11, 3 (2018), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.9746/jcmsi.11.239

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Albert Orriols-Puig and Jorge Casillas. 2011. Fuzzy knowledge representation study for incremental learning in data streams and classification problems. Soft Computing 15, 12 (2011), 2389–2414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-010-0668-x

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    Albert Orriols-Puig, Jorge Casillas, and Ester Bernadó-Mansilla. 2008. Ap- proximate Versus Linguistic Representation in Fuzzy-UCS. In Hybrid Artificial Intelligence Systems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 722–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87656-4_89

    2008 doi

  23. [31]

    Albert Orriols-Puig, Jorge Casillas, and Ester Bernadó-Mansilla. 2008. Evolv- ing Fuzzy Rules with UCS: Preliminary Results. In Learning Classifier Systems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-540-88138-4_4

    2008

  24. [32]

    Albert Orriols-Puig, Jorge Casillas, and Ester Bernadó-Mansilla. 2009. Fuzzy-UCS: A Michigan-Style Learning Fuzzy-Classifier System for Supervised Learning.IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 13, 2 (April 2009), 260–283. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2008.925144

    2009

  25. [33]

    İlker Özkan, Murat Köklü, and Rıdvan Saraçoğlu. 2021. Classification of Pistachio Species Using Improved k-NN Classifier. Progress in Nutrition 23, 2 (2021). https: //doi.org/10.23751/pn.v23i2.9686

    2021 doi

  26. [35]

    Hiroki Shiraishi, Yohei Hayamizu, Hiroyuki Sato, and Keiki Takadama. 2022. Beta Distribution based XCS Classifier System. In 2022 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC). IEEE, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/CEC55065.2022.9870314

    2022

  27. [36]

    Hiroki Shiraishi, Yohei Hayamizu, Hiroyuki Sato, and Keiki Takadama. 2022. Can the Same Rule Representation Change Its Matching Area? Enhancing Repre- sentation in XCS for Continuous Space by Probability Distribution in Multiple Dimension. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evo...

    2022

  28. [37]

    Farzaneh Shoeleh, Ali Hamzeh, and Sattar Hashemi. 2010. To Handle Real Valued Input in XCS: Using Fuzzy Hyper-trapezoidal Membership in Classifier Condition. In Simulated Evolution and Learning . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/97...

    2010 doi

  29. [38]

    Farzaneh Shoeleh, Ali Hamzeh, and Sattar Hashemi. 2011. Towards Final Rule Set Reduction in XCS: A Fuzzy Representation Approach. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (Dublin, Ire- land) (GECCO ’11). Association for Computing Mac...

    2011

  30. [39]

    Farzaneh Shoeleh, Mahshid Majd, Ali Hamzeh, and Sattar Hashemi. 2015. Knowl- edge Representation in Learning Classifier Systems: A Review. https://doi.org/ 10.48550/ARXIV.1506.04002

    2015 doi arXiv

  31. [40]

    Dilbag Singh, Yavuz Selim Taspinar, Ramazan Kursun, Ilkay Cinar, Murat Koklu, Ilker Ali Ozkan, and Heung-No Lee. 2022. Classification and Analysis of Pistachio Species with Pre-Trained Deep Learning Models. Electronics 11, 7 (2022). https: GECCO ’23, July 15–19, 2023, Lisbon, ...

    2022 doi

  32. [41]

    Jack W Smith, James E Everhart, WC Dickson, William C Knowler, and Robert Scott Johannes. 1988. Using the ADAP learning algorithm to forecast the onset of diabetes mellitus. In Proceedings of the annual symposium on com- puter application in medical care . American Medical Inf...

    1988

  33. [42]

    Christopher Stone and Larry Bull. 2003. For Real! XCS with Continuous- Valued Inputs. Evol. Comput. 11, 3 (sep 2003), 299–336. https://doi.org/10. 1162/106365603322365315

    2003

  34. [43]

    Masakazu Tadokoro, Hiroyuki Sato, and Keiki Takadama. 2021. XCS with Weight-based Matching in VAE Latent Space and Additional Learning of High- Dimensional Data. In 2021 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) . IEEE, 304–310. https://doi.org/10.1109/CEC45853.2021.9504909

    2021

  35. [44]

    Ryan John Urbanowicz, Angeline S Andrew, Margaret Rita Karagas, and Jason H Moore. 2013. Role of genetic heterogeneity and epistasis in bladder cancer susceptibility and outcome: a learning classifier system approach. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 20,...

    2013 doi

  36. [45]

    Ryan John Urbanowicz and Will N. Browne. 2017. Introduction to Learning Classifier Systems (1st ed.). Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated

    2017

  37. [46]

    Ryan John Urbanowicz and Jason H Moore. 2009. Learning classifier systems: a complete introduction, review, and roadmap. Journal of Artificial Evolution and Applications 2009 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1155/2009/736398

    2009 doi

  38. [47]

    Ryan John Urbanowicz and Jason H Moore. 2015. ExSTraCS 2.0: description and evaluation of a scalable learning classifier system. Evolutionary intelligence 8, 2 (2015), 89–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-015-0128-8

    2015 doi

  39. [48]

    Manuel Valenzuela-Rendón. 1991. The fuzzy classifier system: Motivations and first results. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0029774

    1991 doi

  40. [49]

    Alexander R. M. Wagner and Anthony Stein. 2022. Mechanisms to Alleviate Over-Generalization in XCS for Continuous-Valued Input Spaces. SN Computer Science 3, 2 (2022), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-022-01060-w

    2022 doi

  41. [50]

    Stewart W. Wilson. 1995. Classifier Fitness Based on Accuracy. Evol. Comput. 3, 2 (jun 1995), 149–175. https://doi.org/10.1162/evco.1995.3.2.149

    1995 doi

  42. [51]

    Stewart W Wilson. 1998. Generalization in the XCS Classifier System. Proc. Genetic Programming 1998 (1998)

    1998

  43. [52]

    Stewart W. Wilson. 2000. Get Real! XCS with Continuous-Valued Inputs. In Learning Classifier Systems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 209–

    2000

  44. [53]

    Stewart W. Wilson. 2001. Mining Oblique Data with XCS. InAdvances in Learning Classifier Systems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 158–174. https: //doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44640-0_11

    2001 doi

  45. [54]

    Stewart W Wilson. 2002. Classifiers that approximate functions. Natural Com- puting 1, 2 (04 2002), 211–234. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016535925043

    2002 doi

  46. [55]

    Stewart W. Wilson. 2008. Classifier Conditions Using Gene Expression Pro- gramming. In Learning Classifier Systems . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 206–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88138-4_12

    2008 doi

  47. [56]

    L.A. Zadeh. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8, 3 (1965), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X

    1965 doi

  48. [57]

    Lotfi A. Zadeh. 1973. Outline of a New Approach to the Analysis of Complex Sys- tems and Decision Processes. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC-3, 1 (Jan 1973), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1973.5408575

    1973

  49. [58]

    Lynch, and Ryan J

    Robert Zhang, Rachael Stolzenberg-Solomon, Shannon M. Lynch, and Ryan J. Urbanowicz. 2021. LCS-DIVE: An Automated Rule-based Machine Learning Visualization Pipeline for Characterizing Complex Associations in Classification. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2104.12844

    2021 doi arXiv

  50. [219]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45027-0_11

    doi

  51. [2022]

    In Bioinspired Optimization Methods and Their Applications

    Investigating the Impact of Independent Rule Fitnesses in a Learning Classifier System. In Bioinspired Optimization Methods and Their Applications . Springer International Publishing, Cham, 142–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-031-21094-5_11

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.