1 / 14

Toward the Computer-Automated Design of Sophisticated Systems by Enabling Structural Organization

Toward the Computer-Automated Design of Sophisticated Systems by Enabling Structural Organization. Gregory S. Hornby Adaptive Control & Evolvable Systems Group University of California Santa Cruz NASA Ames Research Center hornby@email.arc.nasa.gov. Introduction.

plato-russo
Download Presentation

Toward the Computer-Automated Design of Sophisticated Systems by Enabling Structural Organization

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Toward the Computer-Automated Design of Sophisticated Systems by Enabling Structural Organization Gregory S. Hornby Adaptive Control & Evolvable Systems Group University of California Santa Cruz NASA Ames Research Center hornby@email.arc.nasa.gov

  2. Introduction Computer-automated design (CAD) systems have produced simple designs, such as: • How to scale to produce entire complex systems? • Look to Engineering and Natural systems for inspiration. • Both produce things with the characteristics of: • Modularity, Regularity & Hierarchy (MR&H). • => structural organization. • To improve scalability of CAD systems, they must also be able to produce designs with structural organization (MR&H). Evolved X-band antenna for NASA’s ST5 mission. Three are in space: Evolved gait for Sony’s AIBO. Over 20,000 sold:

  3. Why Representation? A CAD system consists of: • Search Algorithm (SA) for exploring the design space. • Representation for encoding designs. • Fitness/cost Function for scoring designs. Which part of a CAD system is responsible for MR&H? • Should be independent of the fitness function. • SA is limited to what can be encoded. • Consequently dependent on the Representation.

  4. Achieving Scalable Representations • To improve structural organization of CAD systems: • Definitions of MR&H. • Metrics for measuring (and clearly defining) MR&H. • These definitions and metrics are based on the properties of representations. • Representations are a kind of programming language and thus have the fundamental properties of: • Combination: eg. Strings, Trees, Graphs. • Control Flow: Conditionals, Iteration. • Abstraction: Labels, Parameters, Recursion.

  5. Metrics for MR&H We define MR&H by giving metrics for them: • Modularity: a module is an encapsulated group of elements that can be manipulated together. • Measured by counting # of labeled procedures and iterative loops. • Regularity: amount of reuse. • Measured as: (size of design) / (size of design encoding). • In AIC terms: (size of string) / (size of string encoding) • Hierarchy: Levels of nested modules. • The Hierarchy of an encoding is maximum depth of nested modules.

  6. We compare 5 different representations by enabling different combinations of MR&H: Modularity(M): Just Abstraction. Reuse(R): Iteration, recursion. Hierarchy(H): Nested procedures and iterative loops. None: a tree of construction operators, no features. M: modularity thru labeled procedures, no reuse. MR: modularity & reuse. Iteration & abstraction but no nested loops or proc calls. MH: modularity & hierarchy. Abstraction, and nested abstraction but no recursion. MRH: modularity, reuse & hierarchy. Nested iteration and recursive abstraction enabled. The 5 Representations

  7. Graphical Example Representation has: • Tree-structured comb. • Iteration & conditionals. • Labeled procedures: • Parameters. • Recursion. Geno-M:6, pheno-M:17, R:1.27, H:5

  8. Example Encoding with MRH Genotype: Intermediate phenotype: Graphical version:

  9. Evolved Tables Table fitness = height*surface*volume / material Representation: None Representation: MRH

  10. Evolution in Action Evolving tables: fitness = height*surface area*stability/material. No MRH enabled: MRH enabled:

  11. Comparing Complexity Measures

  12. Comparing Complexity Measures None: Fit:25mil, AIC:4999, M:0, R:1, H:1 MR&H: Fit:60mil, AIC:495, M:34, R:10, H:9

  13. Using MR&H for a Single # Measure of Structural Organization…

  14. Conclusion Hypothesis: To improve scalability need modularity, regularity and hierarchy (MR&H). • MR&H are enabled in the representation by combination, control-flow & abstraction. • Defined metrics for MR&H. Compared representations with different combinations of MR&H enabled: • Best performance came with all of MR&H enabled. • Measuring MR&H gives more intuitive value of complexity (structural organization) than AIC, or other measures. Future improvements in scalability may come from adding other features of programming languages (objects?).

More Related