Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Toward the Computer-Automated Design of Sophisticated Systems by Enabling Structural Organization Gregory S. Hornby Adaptive Control & Evolvable Systems.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Toward the Computer-Automated Design of Sophisticated Systems by Enabling Structural Organization Gregory S. Hornby Adaptive Control & Evolvable Systems."— 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 Ames Research Center 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 gait for Sony’s AIBO. Over 20,000 sold: Evolved X-band antenna for NASA’s ST5 mission. Three are in space:

3 Ames Research Center 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 Ames Research Center 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 Ames Research Center 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 Ames Research Center The 5 Representations 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.

7 Ames Research Center Example Encoding with MRH Genotype:Intermediate phenotype: Graphical version:

8 Ames Research Center Evolved Tables Table fitness = height*surface*volume / material

9 Ames Research Center Evolution in Action Evolving tables: fitness = height*surface area*stability/material. No MRH enabled: MRH enabled:

10 Ames Research Center Comparing Complexity Measures

11 Ames Research Center Comparing Complexity Measures None: MR&H: Fit:25mil, AIC:4999, M:0, R:1, H:1 Fit:60mil, AIC:495, M:34, R:10, H:9

12 Ames Research Center Using MR&H for a Single # Measure of Structural Organization… NoneMMHMRMRH Fitness (*10^6) 4.826.787.8214.6018.00 MRH (len of vector) 1.737.412.810.837.2 M*R*H014.265.669.82792 M*R*H Assem 00.00790.0260.00984.2 M*R*H AIC 00.00790.0260.0310.34

13 Ames Research Center 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?).


Download ppt "Toward the Computer-Automated Design of Sophisticated Systems by Enabling Structural Organization Gregory S. Hornby Adaptive Control & Evolvable Systems."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google