Advertisement

The Fighter Aircraft LCS: A Case of Different LCS Goals and Techniques

  • Robert E. Smith
  • B. A. Dike
  • B. Ravichandran
  • A. El-Fallah
  • R. K. Mehra
Conference paper
  • 668 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1813)

Abstract

A system employed by the authors to acquire novel fighter aircraft manoeuvres from combat simulation is more akin to the traditional LCS model than to more recent systems. Given the difficulties often experienced in LCS research on simple problems, one must ask how a relatively primitive LCS has had consistent success in the complex domain of fighter aircraft manoeuvring. This paper presents the fighter aircraft LCS, in greater detail than in previous publications. Positive results from the system are discussed. The paper then focuses on the primary reasons the fighter aircraft LCS has avoided the difficulties of the traditional LCS. The authors believe the system’s success has three primary origins: differences in credit assignment, differences in action encoding, and (possibly most importantly) a difference in system goals. In the fighter aircraft system, the goal has been simply the discovery of innovative, novel tactics, rather than online control. The paper concludes by discussing the most salient features of the fighter aircraft learning system, and how those features may be profitably combined with other LCS developments.

Keywords

Learn Classifier System Fighter Aircraft Credit Assignment Engagement Score Action Encode 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Booker, L. B. (1992) Viewing Classifier Systems as an Integrated Architecture. Paper presented at The First International Conference on Learning Classifier Systems, Houston, Texas, October 1.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goldberg, D. E. (1989) Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grefenstette, J. J. (1988) Credit assignment in rule discovery systems based on genetic algorithms. Machine Learning 3. pp. 225–246.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holland, J. H. (1992) Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holland, J. H., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E. and Thagard, P. R. (1986) Induction: Processes of inference, learning, and discovery. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holland, J. H. and Reitman, J. S. (1978) Cognitive systems based on adaptive algorithms. In Waterman, D. A. and Hayes-Roth, F., “ Pattern directed inference systems”. Academic Press, NY.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shaw, R. L. (1998) Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering. United States Naval Institute Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith, R. E. and Dike B. A. (1995) Learning novel fighter combat maneuver rules via genetic algorithms. International Journal of Expert Systems, 8(3) (1995) 247–276.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith, R. E., Dike, B. A. and Stegmann, S. A. (1994) Inheritance in Genetic Algorithms, in: Proceedings of the ACM 1995 Symposium on Applied Computing. ACM Press. pp. 345–350.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith, R. E., Dike, B. A., Mehra, R. K., Ravichandran, B. and El-Fallah, A. (in press). Classifier Systems In Combat: Two-Sided Learning of Maneuvers For Advanced Fighter Aircraft. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Elsevier.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sutton, R. S. and Barto, A. G. (1998) Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Watkins, J. C. H. (1989). Learning with delayed rewards. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. King’s College, London.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wilson, S. W. (1994) ZCS: A zeroth-level classifier system, Evolutionary Computation 2(1). pp. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wilson, S. W. (1995). Classifier fitness based on accuracy. Evolutionary Computation, 3(1), 149–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wilson, S. W. (1999) State of XCS Classifier System Research. Technical Report Number 99.1.1 (Unpublished), Prediction Dynamics, Concord, MA.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. M. Doane, C. H. Gay and J. A. Fligg, Multi-system integrated control (MuSIC) program. final report. Technical report, Wright Laboratories, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH., 1989.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation. (Basic Books, New York, 1984)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. D. Luce and H. Raiffa, Games and Decisions. (Dover Publications, 1989).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Floriano and S. Nolfi, S., God save the red queen!: Competition in co-evolutionary robotics, in: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Genetic Programming, (1997) 398–406.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smith, R. E., Memory Exploitation in Learning Classifier Systems,(1995) Evolutionary Computation, 2(3), pp. 199–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wilson, S. W. (1994) ZCS: A zeroth-level classifier system, Evolutionary Computation 2(1). pp. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert E. Smith
    • 1
  • B. A. Dike
    • 2
  • B. Ravichandran
  • A. El-Fallah
  • R. K. Mehra
    • 3
  1. 1.The Intelligent Computing Systems CentreThe University of The West of EnglandBristolUK
  2. 2.The Boeing CompanySt. Louis
  3. 3.Scientific SystemsWoburn

Personalised recommendations