Conference PaperPDF Available

Evolution Aided Architectural Design: An Internet based evolutionary design system

Evolution Aided Architectural Design
An Internet based evolutionary design system
Patrick JANSSEN *, John FRAZER, Ming-Xi TANG
Abstract: This paper describes a framework for evolutionary design system that
attempts to overcome two key limitations with existing systems. First, the proposed
system explicitly separates the core evolutionary process from the design specific
rules and data structures. This allows the rules and data structures to be
manipulated so as to reflect the idiosyncratic design approach of the design team.
The second limitation to be overcome centres on the integration of existing
simulation and analysis programs within the proposed system. These programs tend
to be computationally very expensive, and may run on different operating systems.
The option of creating a monolithic system is therefore not viable; instead a
networked approach is taken.
Keywords: evolution, generative design, Java, servlets, XML, XSLT
1 Introduction
Evolution can be thought of as consisting of two fundamental processes: creation
and survival. In nature, the creation process involves creating new organisms
through reproduction and development, and the survival process involves the
differential survival of organisms competing in an environment with limited
Large populations of organisms individually reproduce to generate new offspring.
Each offspring develops from an encoded set of triggers, known as the genotype,
into a fully developed organism, known as the phenotype. The offspring will inherit
features from their parents, but may also have some entirely new features.
Organisms compete for resources in the environment and those that are best adapted
to the environment will have the highest chances of surviving and reproducing.
Universal Darwinism [DAW 83] suggests that the process of evolution can emerge
regardless of the medium, be it biological, computational, cognitive, or some other
medium. Evolution Aided Design (EAD) is a design approach that uses evolutionary
software in order to aid the design process. Numerous EAD systems have been
developed in a variety of design fields [FRA 95; BEN 99; BC 02]. Such systems can
also be conceptualised as two processes: a design creation process and a design
survival process. The creation process generates populations of design alternatives.
The survival process edits this population by allowing the most suitable designs to
survive. These designs are then used by the creation process as a basis for generating
new designs. Gradually, the population as a whole evolves and adapts.
* School of Design, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China.
Evolution Aided Architectural Design (EAAD) is a design approach that focus
specifically on designing buildings using evolutionary software. With the EAAD
approach, the design team first provides various types of design information,
encoded in an appropriate manner. The evolutionary software can then be used to
evolve a population of simplified three-dimensional building models representing a
range of design alternatives. The design team can then select the most suitable
model, and further develop this model to create a fully detailed design proposal.
A general framework for an EAAD system is proposed. The framework sets out a
reasoned and coherent approach to developing EAAD systems. Abstract components
and processes are identified, and certain constraints and requirements are
highlighted. Finally, an implementation strategy is discussed.
2 Framework for EAAD systems
Evolutionary programs tend to decompose the creation and survival processes into a
series of smaller sequential steps. Each step uses a set of transformation rules that
define how one set of data should be transformed into another set of data. Data
structures define the structure, content and semantics of a particular set of data. The
rules and data structures within each step are highly interrelated. For example, the
data produced by one step needs to be compatible with the rules in the next step.
Historically, the best-known type of evolutionary program is perhaps the genetic
algorithm, invented by John Holland in the 1960s [HOL 75]. Within a simple
genetic algorithm [MIT 96: 10], the processes of creation and survival can be
decomposed into three steps: reproduction, evaluation and selection. The
reproduction step is part of the creation process and produces a genotype (or
chromosome) from the parents. The evaluation step spans both creation and survival
processes and produces a fitness value for the genotype. The selection step is part of
the survival process and uses the fitness value as a basis for deciding whether to
select the genotype to become a parent.
The majority of the rules and data structures used by the genetic algorithm are very
generic, thereby allowing the algorithm to be applied to a wide variety of problems.
The genotype and fitness are both represented using standard data structures: the
genotype data structure is a fix length binary string and the fitness data structure is a
single real number. The reproduction and selection steps also use standard rules: the
reproduction step uses single point crossover and mutation and the selection step
uses roulette wheel selection.
The evaluation step, on the other hand, requires the definition of a problem specific
evaluation rules. For example, one common application of the genetic algorithm is
function optimisation, where the goal is to find a set of parameter values that
maximize a function. In the case of a one-dimensional function, the evaluation step
must first translate the binary string into a real number and then evaluate the
function at that value. The fitness of a string is the function value at that point [MIT
96: 9]. If at some later stage a two-dimensional function needs to be optimised, then
the evaluation rules will need to be changed in order to translate the binary string
into two real numbers rather than one, and to subsequently evaluate the function
using these two values. If the genetic algorithm is to be used for something other
than function optimisation, then the evaluation rules may need more extensive
redesign. The other rules and data structures, on the other hand, remain unchanged.
As a result, genetic algorithms can be applied to many problems with only minimal
Genetic algorithms have been highly successful at solving a wide variety of
problems. For example, Mitchell lists optimisation, automatic programming,
machine learning, economics, immune systems, ecology, population genetics,
evolution and learning, and social systems as areas where genetic algorithms have
been successfully applied [MIT 96: 15-16]. She writes: “Interest in GAs has been
growing rapidly in the last several years among researchers in many disciplines. The
field of GAs has become a subdiscipline of computer science, with conferences,
journals, and a scientific society” [MIT 96: 16]
However, despite their massive success, there are nevertheless many problems that
would seem to be amenable to the evolutionary approach but for which genetic
algorithms have been found to be too restricted. This is due to the fact that any rules
and data structures inevitably result in biases and constraints being created within
the evolutionary process. These biases and constraints will result in an evolutionary
process that will favour some possibilities, while denying other possibilities.
Although the genetic algorithm aims to be highly generic, the biases and constraints
are nevertheless still significant, and these biases and constraints tend to conflict
with certain types of problem. Koza writes: “Representation is a key issue in genetic
algorithm work because the representation can severely limit the window by which
the system observes its world… String-based representation schemes are difficult
and unnatural for many problems and the need for more powerful representations
has been recognized for some time” [KOZ 90] (quoted in [MIC 96: 4]).
Such conflicts result in two possibilities: either the problem is adapted to fit the
genetic algorithm or genetic algorithm is adapted to fit the problem. For complex
problems, many researchers have taken the latter approach. As a result, over the last
two decades, a wide variety of problem specific variations of genetic algorithms
have been created [MIC 96: 4]. Such algorithms embed problem specific rules and
data structures with the algorithm. In Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures =
Evolution Programs, Michalewicz advocates “the use of proper (possibly complex)
data structures (for chromosome representation) together with an expanded set of
genetic operators” [MIC 96: 3]. Throughout the book he argues for and presents a
wide range of problem specific evolutionary algorithms that employ complex rules
and data structures. These algorithms have been successful in solving complex
problems that genetic algorithms have not been able to solve. However, a major
drawback is that these algorithms are no longer generic. If any of these algorithms
are applied to a new problem, they require major modifications.
EAD systems tend to follow a similar problem specific approach. Such systems are
used to evolve designs rather than solutions to problems. These designs are often
complex entities with many interrelated parts. The rules and data structures used by
genetic algorithms have been found to be too restricted for evolving such designs
and as a result EAD systems have tended to embed complex rules and data
structures within the algorithm. For example, the GADES system developed by
Bentley uses a hierarchical genotype data structure, specialised reproduction rules,
and a complex mapping process that generates design models from the genotype
[BEN 96]. All these rules and data structures are embedded within the algorithm in
such a way that changing or modifying them becomes impossible. Although Bentley
claims that the system is very generic, the types of models that can be evolved are
nevertheless highly restricted.
The same drawback therefore applies to EAD systems: every time a new design is to
be evolved, the whole system needs to be recreated almost from scratch. This is
particularly problematic for design systems, since the rules and data structures will
affect the kinds of designs that are evolved. Designers will therefore want to define
custom rules and data structures that reflect their idiosyncratic design approach.
Designers must be able to experiment with a variety of rules and data structures and
explore the resulting constraints and biases.
For EAD systems, the constraints and biases imposed by the rules and data
structures can vary widely. Examples of constraints include the geometrical range of
forms, the transformational operations available, the inclusion or exclusion of
material properties such as colour, transparency and texture, and so forth. It is
impossible for a program to produce designs that fall outside such hard constraints.
Biases, however, are statistical and probabilistic in nature. The rules and data
structures, while not actually making the evolution of certain types of forms
impossible, may nevertheless make them very unlikely. For example, the rules and
data structures may affect the stylistic and aesthetic characteristics of designs.
2.1 Creating a generic system
A framework for EAAD systems is proposed that advocates the development of
complex rules and data structures tailored to the evolution of building forms that
reflect the idiosyncratic design approach of a particular design team. However,
rather than embedding these rules and data structures within the evolutionary
algorithm, the framework allows them to be defined separately. This separation will
permit the rules and data structures to be changed without requiring modification of
the algorithm itself. The rules and data structures used by an evolutionary program
are collectively described as the evolutionary schema.
In addition to these rules and data structures, the proposed framework also separates
out another important aspect of the evolutionary process: data about the
environment. This environment will include both design criteria and the design
context. The design criteria may incorporate such things as spatial requirements and
performance specifications, while the design context may consist of a description of
the site and neighbouring buildings. Collectively, these are referred to as the
evolutionary environment. This evolutionary environment plays an important role in
the process of evaluating genotypes. For example, if the process of generating a
building design from a genotype has access to data about the site, then this process
can ensure that the building being generated does not extend beyond the site
boundaries. Such non-genetic developmental influences are described as being
epigenetic [FRA 95: 119]. The generative and evolutionary systems developed by
Frazer often use such epigenetic growth processes [FRA 95: 57-58]. For example, in
the Reptile system a system for generating building enclosures “the
configuration of the minimal construction or seed is compared with the user’s
requirements for a particular building, and the seed is grown, stretched, deformed
and pruned, until it conforms with these requirements” [FC 79].
Due to the complexity of the evaluation step, the framework decomposes this step
into four smaller steps, thereby resulting in a total of six steps. Three steps constitute
the creation process and three constitute the survival process. These steps are seen as
being distinct in a practical rather than formal sense. They organise aspects of the
evolutionary process in a useful manner. The algorithmic procedure for each of the
six steps is almost identical: they all consist of transforming one set of data into
another set through the application of a set of rules. The rules are defined explicitly
and can be changed without requiring any change to this algorithmic procedure. The
data structures are defined implicitly by the rules and the data.
The creation process manipulates three different data structures:
A data structure used to describe a highly abstract encoded representation,
referred to as the genotype.
A data structure used to describe simplified three-dimensional model of the
building, referred to as a skeletal model (analogous to the phenotype).
A data structure used to describe a skeletal model with additional
information relating to its validity, referred to as a validated model.
The three steps that constitute the creation process are the reproduction step, the
generation step and the validation step. The reproduction step produces the new
genotype from genotypes of existing designs. This step extracts material from the
parent genotypes and rearranges it to create new genotypes. The generation step
produces the skeletal model from the genotype and the evolutionary environment.
This step is a complex developmental process that ‘grows’ a new design alternative
in response to the environment. The validation step produces the validated model
from the skeletal model and the evolutionary environment. This step checks the
skeletal model for errors and inconsistencies.
The survival process manipulates two data structures:
A data structure used to describe a list of scores, each of which rates the
quality of the design in some particular area, referred to as the score list.
A data structure used to store the overall assessment of the relative
suitability of the design, referred to as the fitness.
The three steps that constitute the survival process are the prediction step, the
assessment step and the selection step. The prediction step produces the score list
from the validated model and the evolutionary environment. This step simulates and
analyses the skeletal model within the environment in order to try and forecast how
the design would perform if built. The assessment step produces the fitness from the
score list. This step calculates the overall fitness by comparing the scores in a score
list to other score lists in the population. Finally, the selection step uses the fitness in
order to decide whether to allow the design to survive or whether to delete the
design form the population.
Figure 4. Separation of the evolutionary schema and the evolutionary environment
from the main evolutionary process.
2.2 Integrating existing prediction programs
The whole evolutionary process is guided by the prediction step. The designs will
evolve and adapt so as to satisfy the simulations and analyses defined within this
step. These simulations and analyses aim to forecast how the design would perform
if built. It is therefore essential that they are as accurate as possible.
Some of the more straightforward analyses may be defined as prediction rules.
However, it would not be practical to attempt to define complex simulations and
sophisticated analyses in this way. In these cases, the approach taken is to link to
third party programs that are able to perform these simulations and analyses.
Numerous programs already exist, such as lighting simulation programs, energy
simulation programs, and structural analysis programs.
The linking of the evolutionary system with third-party programs imposes a number
of requirements. These programs tend to be large and complex and often run on
different operating systems. As a result, creating an evolutionary system that runs on
a single computer is not feasible. Instead, the implementation must use a networked
approach that allows the various prediction programs to be running on separate
computers with different operating systems.
This approach has two additional advantages. First, it allows the different simulation
and analysis programs to be configured and controlled by specialists in different
geographical locations. Second, it can be extended to allow all steps to be performed
in parallel and to be duplicated. For instance, several dozen networked computers
could be set up so that each step might be duplicated on several computers with all
steps running in parallel. This is perhaps most useful for the prediction step since the
simulations and analyses are often complex and very slow. The evolutionary process
requires each design alternative to be separately assessed. The networked approach
can result in significantly speeding up this process by running simulations and
analyses in parallel.
The proposed framework for EAAD systems can broadly be described as follows. A
central database contains the population of designs at various stages of development.
Each design in the database will go through six life cycle steps. Each of these six life
cycle steps is treated as a distinct software component that may be running on a
separate computer independently from the other components. Each component will
have the ability to obtain data relating to one of the designs in the population
database, apply the transformation rules to the data, and then return the newly
produced data to the database. This new data will then be linked to the design. As
well as these six life cycle components, two additional components are required: an
initialisation component and a visualization component. The initialisation
component allows the database to be initialised with random designs. The
visualization component allows a design team to view the skeletal models that have
been evolved.
In order to allow the components to operate independently from one another, the
evolutionary process proceeds in an asynchronous manner. Designs in the
population will be at different life cycle stages. When a component accesses the
database for a design to process, a list of those designs currently at an appropriate
developmental stage is created. One of the designs from this list is then randomly
chosen and sent to the component. After processing the design, the component will
send the design back to the database. The design will have progressed to the next
developmental stage and will now be ready to be picked up by another component.
All components will blindly repeat this process. If at some point a component finds
that there are no designs left to process, then the component will ‘sleep’ for a short
time before being reactivated. This asynchronous process means that the change
from one generation to the next is not clearly defined, but will instead be a gradual
The reproduction step will continuously be creating new designs, and the selection
step will be continuously deleting designs. The desired size of the population is
specified at the start of the evolutionary process. Whenever the population falls
below a certain size the selection step will be put to sleep, and whenever it rises
above this size, the reproduction step will be put to sleep. As a result, the population
will remain dynamically stable.
Figure 5. Networked configuration of the evolutionary process.
2.3 Implementing an EAAD system
The implementation strategy needs to fulfil a number of requirements. Foremost is
perhaps the requirement for a rule processor that can apply a set of rules to a set of
data. Such a rule processor could be used in all of the six life cycle steps. In
addition, such a processor could also be used by the visualisation component in
order to generate a file compatible with existing model viewers and CAD programs.
In each case, the processor would transform one set of data into another set by
applying a set of rules. Clearly, the processor would have to be capable of
manipulating a wide variety of rules and data.
Neither the rules nor the data can be specified in advance. Furthermore, the data
structure of the data can also not be specified in advance. The data structure of the
rules, on the other hand, can be specified. This will allow the rule processor to
access a document that contains a set of rules and to recognise the different the rules.
However, in order to apply these rules to a document containing the data, the
processor needs to be able to recognize and parse this data. Therefore, two languages
are required: a language with a very generic structure that allows a wide variety of
data (with different data structures) to be described; and a language with a data
structure that defines how rules should be described. In addition, in order to
minimise any new skills that would have to be learnt, it is essential that the
languages are not proprietary or esoteric.
Two languages that fulfil these requirements already exist: XML and XSLT. XML
(Extensible Markup Language) is a language for describing structured data. XSLT
(Extensible Stylesheet Language: Transformations) is a language for describing
rules that transform of XML documents. Furthermore, a large number of rule
processors for these languages already exist. For example, the Apache Xalan-Java
processor is a Java implementation of such a rule processor. These processors apply
the XSLT rules to a specified XML source document and create a new XML result
document. Currently, there is also an explosion of documentation and support for
XML and XSLT, thereby substantially lowering the skill-learning threshold for non-
technical users.
For implementation, the Java programming language is being used. Java has
advanced built-in networking capabilities that make it very suitable. The networked
configuration is created using Java servlet technology. Servlets are Java programs
that run within a servlet container on the server. The six life cycle components are
each implemented as Java clients that connect and communicate with the servlets
running on the server. The Apache Xalan-Java processor is used within each of the
six clients. For example, to perform the reproduction step, the reproduction client
downloads the parent genotypes from the server and merges them to create a single
XML source document, the client then transforms this document according to the
reproduction rules defined in an XSLT document, and finally the client uploads the
XML result document that is the new genotype back to the server. The server then
stores the new genotype in a database. The Apache Xalan-Java processor is also
being used in order to generate VRML files that can be viewed in standard VRML
The use of XML and XSLT present considerable advantages, both in terms of
simplifying implementation and in terms of reducing the skill-learning threshold. By
using an existing XSLT processor further enhances these benefits. However, XSLT
may not always be an appropriate language for defining certain complex
transformations. The framework has already identified the need to integrate third-
party prediction programs within the prediction step. In addition to this, the
generation step may also require a more powerful language than XSLT. The
generation step involves the definition of complex three-dimensional forms
requiring large amounts of numerical manipulation, while XSLT is primarily
focused on symbolic manipulation. Two possible approaches present themselves.
One approach is to extend the power of XSLT with extension functions. For
example, Xalan-Java allows Java extension functions to be called from within the
XSLT rules. A second approach if to use a different kind of processor in this step.
For example, existing solid and surface modelling kernels such as ACIS or Parasolid
might be used as a basis for developing a generative process. This second approach,
although potentially powerful, has the disadvantage of further complicating the
process of defining rules and data structures. As a result, the use of XSLT with Java
extension functions will first be explored.
3 Conclusions
The EAAD system is under active development. This system is seen as a general-
purpose toolkit for performing evolutionary design experiments. The two key
characteristics of the system have been highlighted. First, the separation of the
evolutionary rules from the evolutionary process allows new design schemas to be
encoded. Second, the networked configuration allows third-part prediction programs
to be integrated with the system and allows the life cycle steps to be executed in
parallel. The system currently under development aims to provide the community of
experimenters and researchers with the core functionality of an EAAD system.
Users of the system will require a certain level of programming knowledge in order
to create the evolutionary schema and encode the evolutionary environment.
The system is therefore not targeted at the design community. However, in the long
term, this system is seen as just the beginning of a lengthy process of eventually
developing more user-friendly EAAD systems. With systems such as the one
currently under development, the community of experimenters and researchers will
gradually develop an understanding of the types of rules and data structures that are
most successful in the generation and evolution of building forms. It is envisaged
that certain patterns of successful combinations of rules and data structures will
emerge. Once such successful patterns are identified, then a second stage of software
development can take place whereby user-friendly systems are developed that
embody these patterns in their mode of operation and in their user interface.
4 Acknowledgments
Our research project is supported by a UGC PhD project grant from the Hong Kong
Polytechnic University.
5 Bibliography
[BC 02] Bentley, P. and Corne, D. (eds.), 2002. Creative Evolutionary Systems,
Academic Press.
[BEN 96] Bentley, P. J. 1996. Generic Evolutionary Design of Solid Objects using a
Genetic Algorithm. Ph.D. Thesis, Division of Computing and Control Systems,
Department of Engineering, University of Huddersfield.
[BEN 99] Bentley, P. (ed.), 1999. Evolutionary Design by Computers, Morgan.
Kaufmann Publishers Inc, San Fransisco.
[DAW 83] Dawkins, R. 1983. Universal Darwinism, Evolution From Molecules to
Men, edited by D. Bendall, Cambridge University Press, pp. 403-425.
[FC 79] Frazer, J. and Connor, J. 1979. A Conceptual Seeding Technique for
Architectural Design, PArC 79, Proceedings of the International Conference on the
Application of Computers in Architectural design, Berlin (Online Conference with
AMK, 1979), pp. 425-34.
[FRA 95] Frazer, J. 1995. An Evolutionary Architecture, Architectural Association
[HOL 75] Holland, J. 1975. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. The
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
[KOZ 90] Koza, J.R. 1990. Genetic Programming: A Paradigm for Genetically
Breeding Populations of Computer Programs to Solve Problems, Report No. STAN-
CS-90-1314, Stanford University, 1990.
[MIC 96] Michalewicz, Z. 1996. Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution
Programs, Sringer-Verlag.
[MIT 96] Mitchell, M. 1996. An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms, MIT Press.
Full-text available
"October 2004" Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2005. Includes bibliographical references.
Full-text available
This thesis investigates the novel idea of using a computer to create and optimise conceptual designs of a range of differently-shaped three-dimensional solid objects from scratch. An extensive literature review evaluates all related areas of research and reveals that no such system exists. The development of a generic evolutionary design system, using a genetic algorithm (GA) as its core, is then presented. The thesis describes a number of significant advances necessitated by the development of this system. Firstly, a new low-parameter spatial-partitioning representation of solid objects is introduced, which allows a wide range of solid objects to be appropriately defined and easily manipulated by a GA. Secondly, multiobjective optimisation is investigated to allow users to define design problems without fine-tuning large numbers of weights. As a result of this, the new concepts of acceptability, range-independence and importance are introduced and a new multiobjective ranking method is identified as being most appropriate. Thirdly, variable-length chromosomes in GAs are addressed, to allow the number of primitive shapes that define a design to be variable. This problem is overcome by the use of a new hierarchical crossover operator, which uses the new concept of a semantic hierarchy to reference chromosomes. Additionally, the thesis describes how the performance of the GA is improved by using an explicit mapping stage between genotypes and phenotypes, steady-state reproduction with preferential selection, and a new lifespan limiter. A library of modular evaluation software is also presented, which allows a user to define new design problems quickly and easily by picking combinations of modules to guide the evolution of designs. Finally, the feasibility of the generic evolutionary design of solid objects is demonstrated by presenting the successful evolution of both conventional and unconventional designs for fifteen different solid-object design tasks, e.g. tables, heatsinks, penta-prisms, boat hulls, aerodynamic cars.
Many seemingly different problems in machine learning, artificial intelligence, and symbolic processing can be viewed as requiring the discovery of a computer program that produces some desired output for particular inputs. When viewed in this way, the process of solving these problems becomes equivalent to searching a space of possible computer programs for a highly fit individual computer program. The recently developed genetic programming paradigm described herein provides a way to search the space of possible computer programs for a highly fit individual computer program to solve (or approximately solve) a surprising variety of different problems from different fields. In the genetic programming paradigm, populations of computer programs are genetically bred using the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest and using a genetic crossover (sexual recombination) operator appropriate for genetically mating computer programs. This chapter shows how to reformulate seemingly different problems into a common form (i.e. a problem requiring discovery of a computer program) and, then, to show how the genetic programming paradigm can serve as a single, unified approach for solving problems formulated in this common way.
In "An Evolutionary Architecture", John Frazer presents an overview of his work for the past 30 years. Attempting to develop a theoretical basis for architecture using analogies with nature's processes of evolution and morphogenesis. Frazer's vision of the future of architecture is to construct organic buildings. Thermodynamically open systems which are more environmentally aware and sustainable physically, sociologically and economically. The range of topics which Frazer discusses is a good illustration of the breadth and depth of the evolutionary design problem. Environmental Modelling One of the first topics dealt with is the importance of environmental modelling within the design process. Frazer shows how environmental modelling is often misused or misinterpreted by architects with particular reference to solar modelling. From the discussion given it would seem that simplifications of the environmental models is the prime culprit resulting in misinterpretation and misuse. The simplifications are understandable given the amount of information needed for accurate modelling. By simplifying the model of the environmental conditions the architect is able to make informed judgments within reasonable amounts of time and effort. Unfortunately the simplications result in errors which compound and cause the resulting structures to fall short of their anticipated performance. Frazer obviously believes that the computer can be a great aid in the harnessing of environmental modelling data, providing that the same simplifying assumptions are not made and that better models and interfaces are possible. Physical Modelling Physical modelling has played an important role in Frazer's research. Leading to the construction of several novel machine readable interactive models, ranging from lego-like building blocks to beermat cellular automata and wall partitioning systems. Ultimately this line of research has led to the Universal Constructor and the Universal Interactor. The Universal Constructor The Universal Constructor features on the cover of the book. It consists of a base plug-board, called the "landscape", on top of which "smart" blocks, or cells, can be stacked vertically. The cells are individually identified and can communicate with neighbours above and below. Cells communicate with users through a bank of LEDs displaying the current state of the cell. The whole structure is machine readable and so can be interpreted by a computer. The computer can interpret the states of the cells as either colour or geometrical transformations allowing a wide range of possible interpretations. The user interacts with the computer display through direct manipulation of the cells. The computer can communicate and even direct the actions of the user through feedback with the cells to display various states. The direct manipulation of the cells encourages experimentation by the user and demonstrates basic concepts of the system. The Universal Interactor The Universal Interactor is a whole series of experimental projects investigating novel input and output devices. All of the devices speak a common binary language and so can communicate through a mediating central hub. The result is that input, from say a body-suit, can be used to drive the out of a sound system or vice versa. The Universal Interactor opens up many possibilities for expression when using a CAD system that may at first seem very strange.However, some of these feedback systems may prove superior in the hands of skilled technicians than more standard devices. Imagine how a musician might be able to devise structures by playing melodies which express the character. Of course the interpretation of input in this form poses a difficult problem which will take a great deal of research to achieve. The Universal Interactor has been used to provide environmental feedback to affect the development of evolving genetic codes. The feedback given by the Universal Interactor has been used to guide selection of individuals from a population. Adaptive Computing Frazer completes his introduction to the range of tools used in his research by giving a brief tour of adaptive computing techniques. Covering topics including cellular automata, genetic algorithms, classifier systems and artificial evolution. Cellular Automata As previously mentioned Frazer has done some work using cellular automata in both physical and simulated environments. Frazer discusses how surprisingly complex behaviour can result from the simple local rules executed by cellular automata. Cellular automata are also capable of computation, in fact able to perform any computation possible by a finite state machine. Note that this does not mean that cellular automata are capable of any general computation as this would require the construction of a Turing machine which is beyond the capabilities of a finite state machine. Genetic Algorithms Genetic algorithms were first presented by Holland and since have become a important tool for many researchers in various areas.Originally developed for problem-solving and optimization problems with clearly stated criteria and goals. Frazer fails to mention one of the most important differences between genetic algorithms and other adaptive problem-solving techniques, ie. neural networks. Genetic algorithms have the advantage that criteria can be clearly stated and controlled within the fitness function. The learning by example which neural networks rely upon does not afford this level of control over what is to be learned. Classifier Systems Holland went on to develop genetic algorithms into classifier systems. Classifier systems are more focussed upon the problem of learning appropriate responses to stimuli, than searching for solutions to problems. Classifier systems receive information from the environment and respond according to rules, or classifiers. Successful classifiers are rewarded, creating a reinforcement learning environment. Obviously, the mapping between classifier systems and the cybernetic view of organisms sensing, processing and responding to environmental stimuli is strong. It would seem that a central process similar to a classifier system would be appropriate at the core of an organic building. Learning appropriate responses to environmental conditions over time. Artificial Evolution Artificial evolution traces it's roots back to the Biomorph program which was described by Dawkins in his book "The Blind Watchmaker". Essentially, artificial evolution requires that a user supplements the standard fitness function in genetic algorithms to guide evolution. The user may provide selection pressures which are unquantifiable in a stated problem and thus provide a means for dealing ill-defined criteria. Frazer notes that solving problems with ill-defined criteria using artificial evolution seriously limits the scope of problems that can be tackled. The reliance upon user interaction in artificial evolution reduces the practical size of populations and the duration of evolutionary runs. Coding Schemes Frazer goes on to discuss the encoding of architectural designs and their subsequent evolution. Introducing two major systems, the Reptile system and the Universal State Space Modeller. Blueprint vs. Recipe Frazer points out the inadequacies of using standard "blueprint" design techniques in developing organic structures. Using a "recipe" to describe the process of constructing a building is presented as an alternative. Recipes for construction are discussed with reference to the analogous process description given by DNA to construct an organism. The Reptile System The Reptile System is an ingenious construction set capable of producing a wide range of structures using just two simple components. Frazer saw the advantages of this system for rule-based and evolutionary systems in the compactness of structure descriptions. Compactness was essential for the early computational work when computer memory and storage space was scarce. However, compact representations such as those described form very rugged fitness landscapes which are not well suited to evolutionary search techniques. Structures are created from an initial "seed" or minimal construction, for example a compact spherical structure. The seed is then manipulated using a series of processes or transformations, for example stretching, shearing or bending. The structure would grow according to the transformations applied to it. Obviously, the transformations could be a predetermined sequence of actions which would always yield the same final structure given the same initial seed. Alternatively, the series of transformations applied could be environmentally sensitive resulting in forms which were also sensitive to their location. The idea of taking a geometrical form as a seed and transforming it using a series of processes to create complex structures is similar in many ways to the early work of Latham creating large morphological charts. Latham went on to develop his ideas into the "Mutator" system which he used to create organic artworks. Generalising the Reptile System Frazer has proposed a generalised version of the Reptile System to tackle more realistic building problems. Generating the seed or minimal configuration from design requirements automatically. From this starting point (or set of starting points) solutions could be evolved using artificial evolution. Quantifiable and specific aspects of the design brief define the formal criteria which are used as a standard fitness function. Non-quantifiable criteria, including aesthetic judgments, are evaluated by the user. The proposed system would be able to learn successful strategies for satisfying both formal and user criteria. In doing so the system would become a personalised tool of the designer. A personal assistant which would be able to anticipate aesthetic judgements and other criteria by employing previously successful strategies. Ultimately, this is a similar concept to Negroponte's "Architecture Machine" which he proposed would be computer system so personalised so as to be almost unusable by other people. The Universal State Space Modeller The Universal State Space Modeller is the basis of Frazer's current work. It is a system which can be used to model any structure, hence the universal claim in it's title. The datastructure underlying the modeller is a state space of scaleless logical points, called motes. Motes are arranged in a close-packing sphere arrangement, which makes each one equidistant from it's twelve neighbours. Any point can be broken down into a self-similar tetrahedral structure of logical points. Giving the state space a fractal nature which allows modelling at many different levels at once. Each mote can be thought of as analogous to a cell in a biological organism. Every mote carries a copy of the architectural genetic code in the same way that each cell within a organism carries a copy of it's DNA. The genetic code of a mote is stored as a sequence of binary "morons" which are grouped together into spatial configurations which are interpreted as the state of the mote. The developmental process begins with a seed. The seed develops through cellular duplication according to the rules of the genetic code. In the beginning the seed develops mainly in response to the internal genetic code, but as the development progresses the environment plays a greater role. Cells communicate by passing messages to their immediate twelve neighbours. However, it can send messages directed at remote cells, without knowledge of it's spatial relationship. During the development cells take on specialised functions, including environmental sensors or producers of raw materials. The resulting system is process driven, without presupposing the existence of a construction set to use. The datastructure can be interpreted in many ways to derive various phenotypes. The resulting structure is a by-product of the cellular activity during development and in response to the environment. As such the resulting structures have much in common with living organisms which are also the emergent result or by-product of local cellular activity. Primordial Architectural Soups To conclude, Frazer presents some of the most recent work done, evolving fundamental structures using limited raw materials, an initial seed and massive feedback. Frazer proposes to go further and do away with the need for initial seed and start with a primordial soup of basic architectural concepts. The research is attempting to evolve the starting conditions and evolutionary processes without any preconditions. Is there enough time to evolve a complex system from the basic building blocks which Frazer proposes? The computational complexity of the task being embarked upon is not discussed. There is an implicit assumption that the "superb tactics" of natural selection are enough to cut through the complexity of the task. However, Kauffman has shown how self-organisation plays a major role in the early development of replicating systems which we may call alive. Natural selection requires a solid basis upon which it can act. Is the primordial soup which Frazer proposes of the correct constitution to support self-organisation? Kauffman suggests that one of the most important attributes of a primordial soup to be capable of self-organisation is the need for a complex network of catalysts and the controlling mechanisms to stop the reactions from going supracritical. Can such a network be provided of primitive architectural concepts? What does it mean to have a catalyst in this domain? Conclusion Frazer shows some interesting work both in the areas of evolutionary design and self-organising systems. It is obvious from his work that he sympathizes with the opinions put forward by Kauffman that the order found in living organisms comes from both external evolutionary pressure and internal self-organisation. His final remarks underly this by paraphrasing the words of Kauffman, that life is always to found on the edge of chaos. By the "edge of chaos" Kauffman is referring to the area within the ordered regime of a system close to the "phase transition" to chaotic behaviour. Unfortunately, Frazer does not demonstrate that the systems he has presented have the necessary qualities to derive useful order at the edge of chaos. He does not demonstrate, as Kauffman does repeatedly, that there exists a "phase transition" between ordered and chaotic regimes of his systems. He also does not make any studies of the relationship of useful forms generated by his work to phase transition regions of his systems should they exist. If we are to find an organic architecture, in more than name alone, it is surely to reside close to the phase transition of the construction system of which is it built. Only there, if we are to believe Kauffman, are we to find useful order together with environmentally sensitive and thermodynamically open systems which can approach the utility of living organisms.
Universal Darwinism, Evolution From Molecules to Men
  • R Dawkins
[DAW 83] Dawkins, R. 1983. Universal Darwinism, Evolution From Molecules to Men, edited by D. Bendall, Cambridge University Press, pp. 403-425.
A Conceptual Seeding Technique for Architectural Design
  • J Frazer
  • J Connor
[FC 79] Frazer, J. and Connor, J. 1979. A Conceptual Seeding Technique for Architectural Design, PArC 79, Proceedings of the International Conference on the Application of Computers in Architectural design, Berlin (Online Conference with AMK, 1979), pp. 425-34.