Pauline C. Haddow
ABSTRACT
Artificial Development Systems have been introduced as a technique aimed at increasing the scalability of evolutionary algorithms. Most commonly the development model is part of the evolutionary process, each individual developed during fitness evaluation. To achieve scalability it may be argued that the implicit requirements of evolvability and effectivity ( in terms of its resource requirements) are thus placed on the development model. To achieve an effective development model, one of the challenges is to find appropriate mechanisms from developmental biology and ways to implement them for the application in hand. This work presents a development model for the evolution and development of 3D shapes. The goal being to create a simple development model for any 3D shape. Further, this work provides a preliminary investigation into the usefulness of one of the mechanisms implemented in this model, that of chemicals.
- P. Bentley and S. Kumar. Three ways to grow designs: A comparison of embryogenies for an evolutionary design problem. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference volume1, pages 35--43, Orlando, Florida, USA, 13-17July 1999. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
- J. Bongard and R. Pfeifer. Repeated structure and dissociation of genotypic and phenotypic complexity in artificial ontogeny. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference pages 820--836. Morgan-Kaufmann, 2001.Google Scholar
- J. Bongard and R. Pfeifer. Evolving complete agents using artificial ontogeny. In F. Hara and R. Pfeifer, editors, Morpho-functional Machines: The New Species (Designing Embodied Intelligence) pages 237--258. Springer-Verlag, 2003.Google Scholar
- F. Dellaert. Toward A biologically defensible model of development. Master's thesis, Nov. 1995.Google Scholar
- P. Eggenberger. Evolving morphologies of simulated 3d organisms based on differential expression, 1997.Google Scholar
- D. Federici. Evolving complete agents using artificial ontogeny. In Proceedings of SAB, Simulation of Adaptive Behavior pages 373--384, 2004.Google Scholar
- e. a. G. M. Rubin. Comparative genomics of the eukaryotes. In Science pages 2204--2215. 2000.Google Scholar
- D. Goldberg, K. Deb, and B. Korb. Messy genetic algorithms: Motivation, analysis, and first results. Complex Systems 3: 493--530, 1989.Google Scholar
- D. E. Goldberg, K. Deb, H. Kargupta, and G. Harik. Rapid accurate optimization of difficult problems using fast messy genetic algorithms. In S. Forrest, editor, Proc. of the Fifth Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms pages 56--64, San Mateo, CA, 1993. Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. R. Harik and D. E. Goldberg. Learning linkage. In R. K. Belew and M. D. Vose, editors, Foundations of Genetic Algorithms 4 pages 247--262. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 1997.Google Scholar
- P. Hogeweg. Shapes in the shadow: Evolutionary dynamics of morphogenesis. In Artificial Life volume 6, pages 85--101, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. E. Hotz. Comparing direct and developmental encoding schemes in artificial evolution: A case study in evolving lens shapes. In Proc. of the 2004 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation pages 752--757, Portland, Oregon, 20-23 June 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Kalganova. Bidirectional incremental evolution in extrinsic evolvable hardware. In J. Lohn, A. Stoica, and D. Keymeulen, editors, Proceedings of the Second NASA/DoD Workshop on Evolvable Hardware (EH2000) pages 65--74, Palo Alto, California, USA, 13--15 2000. IEEE. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Kumar and P. J. Bentley. Implicit evolvability: An investigation into the evolvability of an embryogeny. In Late Breaking Papers in The Second Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO 2000) 2000.Google Scholar
- J. F. Miller. Evolving a self-repairing, self-regulating, french flag organism. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference pages 129--139, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. F. Miller and W. Banzhaf. Evolving the program for a cell: from french flags to boolean circuits. In S. Kumar and P. J. Bentley, editors, On Growth, Form and Computers Academic Press, Oct. 2003.Google Scholar
- H. Muhlenbein and D. Schlierkamp-Voosen. Predictive models for the breeder genetic algorithm: I. continuous parameter optimization. Evolutionary Computation 1(1): 25--49, 1993.Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. T. P. C. Haddow and P. van Remortel. Shrinking the genotype: L-systems for ehw? In Proceedings of International Conference on evolvable systems: from Biology to Hardware pages 128--139, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. C. Purshouse and P. J. Fleming. An Adaptive Divide-and-Conquer Methodology for Evolutionary, Multi-criterion Optimisation. In C. M. Fonseca, P. J. Fleming, E. Zitzler, K. Deb, and L. Thiele, editors, Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization. Second International Conference, EMO 2003 pages 133--147, Faro, Portugal, April 2003. Springer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Volume 2632. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Torresen. A divide and conquer approach to evolvable hardware. In Proc. of the Second Int. Conf. on Evolvable Systems: from Biology to Hardware (ICES98) 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Wolpert. In Principles of Development Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Achieving a simple development model for 3D shapes: are chemicals necessary?
Recommendations
Achieving agility through BRIDGE process model: an approach to integrate the agile and disciplined software development
Despite of many criticisms, agile software development (Beck et al., Manifesto for Agile Software Development, http://agilemanifesto.org, [1]) philosophy has been proved to be quite successful to increase the project success rate up to a significant ...
Agile Model Driven Development: An Intelligent Compromise
SERA '11: Proceedings of the 2011 Ninth International Conference on Software Engineering Research, Management and ApplicationsBoth the model-driven and agile development approaches have significantly enhanced productivity and predictability of software development in practice. Agile Model Driven Development or AMDD is an attempt to effectively bring together the fast pace of ...
Achieving Higher SEI Levels
Two years or more can pass between formal SEI (Software Engineering Institute) assessments using the Capability Maturity Model (CMM). An organization seeking to monitor its progress to a higher SEI level needs a method for internally conducting ...
Comments