GH Galapagos

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper
10/23/11 7:50 PM
Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving

This blog post is a rough approximation of the lecture I gave at the AAG10 conference in Vienna
on September 21st 2010. Naturally it will be quite a different experience as the medium is quite
different, but it my hope the basic premise of the lecture remains intact. This post deals with Evolutionary Solvers in general, but I use Rhino, Grasshopper and Galapagos to demonstrate the
topics.
There is nothing particularly new about Evolutionary Solvers or Genetic Algorithms.

The first references to this field of computation stem from the early 60's when Lawrence
J. Fogel published the landmark paper "On the Organization of Intellect" which sparked
the first endeavours into evolutionary computing. The early 70's witnessed further forays with seminal work produced by -among others- Ingo Rechenberg and John Henry
Holland. Evolutionary Computation didn't gain popularity beyond the programmer
world until Richard Dawkins' book "The Blind Watchmaker" in 1986, which came with a
small program that generated a seemingly endless stream of body-plans called "Biomorphs" based on human selection. Since the 80's the advent of the personal computer
has made it possible for individuals without government funding to apply evolutionary
principles to personal projects and they have since made it into the common parlance.
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/profiles/blogs/evolutionary-principles
Page 1 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
The term "Evolutionary Computing" may very well be widely known at this point in
time, but they are still very much a programmers tool. 'By programmers for programmers' if you will. The applications out there that apply evolutionary logic are either
aimed at solving specific problems, or they are generic libraries that allow other programmers to piggyback along. It is my hope that Galapagos will provide a generic platform for the application of Evolutionary Algorithms to be used on a wide variety of
problems by non-programmers.
Pros and Cons
Before we dive into the subject matter too deeply though I feel it is important to highlight some of the (dis)advantages of this particular type of solver, just so you know what
to expect. Since we are not living in the best of all possible worlds there is often no such
thing as the perfect solution. Every approach has drawbacks and limitations. In the case
of Evolutionary Algorithms these are luckily well known and easily understood drawbacks, even though they are not trivial. Indeed, they may well be prohibitive for many a
particular problem.
Firstly; Evolutionary Algorithms are slow. Dead slow. It is not unheard of that a single
process may run for days or even weeks. Especially complicated set-ups that require a
long time in order to solve a single iteration will quickly run out of hand. A light/shadow or acoustic computation for example may easily take a minute per iteration. If we assume we'll need at least 50 generations of 50 individuals each (which is almost certainly
an underestimate unless the problem has a very obvious solution.) we're already looking at a two-day runtime.
Page 2 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
Secondly, Evolutionary Algorithms do not guarantee a solution. Unless a predefined

'good-enough' value is specified, the process will tend to run on indefinitely, never
reaching The Answer, or, having reached it, not recognizing it for what it is.
All is not bleak and dismal however, Evolutionary Algorithms have strong benefits as
well, some of them rather unique amongst the plethora of computational methods. They
are remarkably flexible for example, able to tackle a wide variety of problems. There are
classes of problems which are by definition beyond the reach of even the best solver implementation and other classes that are very difficult to solve, but these are typically
rare in the province of the human meso-world. By and large the problems we encounter
on a daily basis fall into the 'evolutionary solvable' category.
Evolutionary Algorithms are also quite forgiving. They will happily chew on problems
that have been under- or over-constrained or otherwise poorly formulated. Furthermore, because the run-time process is progressive, intermediate answers can be harvested at practically any time. Unlike many dedicated algorithms, Evolutionary Solvers
spew forth a never ending stream of answers, where newer answers are generally of a
higher quality than older answers. So even a pre-maturely aborted run will yield something which could be called a result. It might not be a very good result, but it will be a
result of sorts.
Finally, Evolutionary Solvers allow -in principle- for a high degree of interaction with
the user. This too is a fairly unique feature, especially given the broad range of possible
applications. The run-time process is highly transparent and browsable, and there exists
a lot of opportunity for a dialogue between algorithm and human. The solver can be
coached across barriers with the aid of human intelligence, or it can be goaded into exploring sub-optimal branches and superficially dead-ends.
Page 3 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
The Process
In this section I shall briefly outline the process of an Evolutionary Solver run. It is a
highly simplified version of the remainder of the blog post, and I'll skip over many interesting and even important details. I'll show the process as a series of image frames,
where each frame shows the state of the 'population' at a given moment in time. Before I
can start however, I need to explain what the image below means.
What you see here is the Fitness Landscape of a particular model. The model contains two
variables, meaning two values which are allowed to change. In Evolutionary Computhttp://www.grasshopper3d.com/profiles/blogs/evolutionary-principles
Page 4 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
ing we refer to variables as genes. As we change Gene A, the state of the model changes
and it either becomes better or worse (depending on what we're looking for). So as Gene
A changes, the fitness of the entire model goes up or down. But for every value of A, we
can also vary Gene B, resulting in better or worse combinations of A and B. Every combination of A and B results in a particular fitness, and this fitness is expressed as the height
of the Fitness Landscape. It is the job of the solver to find the highest peak in this landscape.
Of course a lot of problems are defined by not just two but many genes, in which case
we can no longer speak of a 'landscape' in the strict sense. A model with 12 genes would
be a 12-dimensional fitness volume deformed in 13 dimensions instead of a two-dimensional fitness plane deformed in 3 dimensions. As this is impossible to visualize I shall
only use one and two-dimensional models, but note that when we speak of a "landscape", it might mean something terribly more complex than the above image shows.
As the solver starts it has no idea about the actual shape of the fitness landscape. Indeed, if we knew the shape we wouldn't need to bother with all this messy evolutionary
stuff in the first place. So the initial step of the solver is to populate the landscape (or
"model-space") with a random collection of individuals (or "genomes"). A genome is
nothing more than a specific value for each and every gene. In the above case, a genome
could for example be {A=0.2 B=0.5}. The solver will then evaluate the fitness for each
and every one of these random genomes, giving us the following distribution:
Page 5 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
Once we know how fit every genome is (i.e., the elevation of the red dots), we can make
a hierarchy from fittest to lamest. We are looking for high-ground in the landscape and
it is a reasonable assumption that the higher genomes are closer to potential highground than the low ones. Therefore we can kill off the worst performing ones and focus on the remainder:
Page 6 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
It is not good enough to simply pick the best performing genome from the initial population and call it quits. Since all the genomes in Generation 0 were picked at random, it
is actually quite unlikely that any of them will have hit the jack-pot. What we need to do
is breed the best performing genomes in Generation 0 to create Generation 1. When we
breed two genomes, their offspring will end up somewhere in the intermediate modelspace, thus exploring fresh ground:
Page 7 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
We now have a new population, which is no longer completely random and which is already starting to cluster around the three fitness 'peaks'. All we have to do is repeat the
above steps (kill off the worst performing genomes, breed the best-performing
genomes) until we have reached the highest peak.
Page 8 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
In order to perform this process, an Evolutionary Solver requires five interlocking parts,
which I'll discuss in something resembling detail. We could call this the anatomy of the
Solver.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Fitness Function
Selection Mechanism
Coupling Algorithm
Coalescence Algorithm
Mutation Factory
Fitness Functions
Page 9 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
In biological evolution, the quality known as "Fitness" is actually something of a stumbling block. Usually it is very difficult to say exactly what it means to be fit. It certainly
has little or nothing to do with being the strongest, or the fastest, or the most vicious.
The reason there are no flying dogs isn't that evolution hasn't gotten around to making
any yet, it is that the dog lifestyle is supremely incompatible with flying and the sacrifices required to equip a dog with flight would certainly detract more from the overall
fitness than flight would add to it. Fitness is the result of a million conflicting forces.
Evolutionary Fitness is the ultimate compromise.
A fit individual is on average able to produce more offspring than an unfit one, so we
could say that fitness equals the number of genetic children. A better measure yet
would be to count the number of grand-children. And a better measure yet would be to
count the allele frequency in the gene-pool of the genes that made up the individual in
question. But these are all rather ad-hoc definitions that cannot be measured on the spot.
Page 10 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
At least in Evolutionary Computation, fitness is a very easy concept. Fitness is whatever

we want it to be. We are trying to solve a specific problem, and therefore we know what it
means to be fit. If for example we are seeking to position a shape so that it may be
milled with minimum material waste, there is a very strict fitness function that leaves
no room for argument.
Let's have a look at the fitness landscape again and let's imagine it represents a model
that seeks to encase an object in a minimum volume bounding-box. A minimum bounding-box is the smallest orthogonal box that completely contains any given shape. In the
image below, the green shape is encased by two bounding boxes. B has a smaller area
than A and is therefore fitter.
When we need to mill or 3D-print a shape, it is

often a good idea to rotate it until it requires the
least amount of material to be used during manufacturing. For a real minimum bounding-box
we need at least three rotation axes, but since
that will not allow me to display the real fitness
landscape, we will restrict ourselves to rotation
around the world X and Y axes. So, Gene A will
represent the rotation around the X axis and
Gene B will represent rotation around the Y axis.
There is no need to allow for rotation higher than 360 degrees, so both genes have a limited working domain. (In fact, since we are talking about orthogonal boxes, even a 0-90
degree domain would suffice). Behold rotation around a single axis:
Page 11 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
When we pick two rotational angles at random,

we end up somewhere on the fitness landscape.
If we allow for 4 decimal places in the rotation
angles it means we can actually generate almost
810,000,000,000 (or 810 billion) unique rotations.
It is therefore exceptionally unlikely that we
manage to pick a random rotation that yields the
best possible answer. But let's say we don't even
manage to get close. Let's say we manage to pick
a random genome that is at the bad end of the fitness scale, i.e. at the bottom of the fitness landscape. What can we say about the blood-line of this genome? When we track
the descendants of a particular genome there is always a large amount of randomness
involved due to the workings of the Solver, but there is a strong general tendency that
can be distinguished. Just like water will always flow downhill along the steepest slope,
so genetic descendants will generally climb uphill along the steepest slope:
Page 12 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
Every individual tries to maximize its own fitness, as high fitness is rewarded by the
solver. And the steepest uphill climb is the fastest way towards high fitness. So if the
black sphere represents the location of the ancestral genome, the orange track represents
the pathway of its most successful offspring. We can repeat this exercise for a large
amount of sample points which will tell us something about how the Solver and the Fitness Landscape interact:
Since every genome is pulled uphill, every peak in the fitness landscape has a basin of attraction around it. This basin represents all the points in model-space that will converge
upon that specific peak. It is important to notice that the area of the basin is in no way
representative of the quality of the peak. Indeed, a very poor solution may have a large
basin of attraction while a good peak might have a small catchment area. Problems like
this are typically very difficult to solve, as the solution tends to get stuck in local optima.
But we'll have a look at problematic fitness functions later on.
Page 13 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
First, let's have a closer look at the actual fitness landscape for our minimum boundingbox model. I'm afraid it's not quite as simple as the image we've been using so far. I was
actually quite surprised how organic and un-box-like the actual fitness landscape for
this problem is. Remember, the x-axis rotation is mapped along the Gene A direction and
the y-axis rotation along the Gene B direction. So every point on the AB plane represents
a unique rotation composed of two angles. The elevation of this point is a direct mapping of the volume of the bounding-box at those two rotation angles:
The first thing to notice is that the landscape is periodic. I.e., it repeats itself every 90 degrees in both directions. Also, this landscape is in fact inverted as we're looking for a
minimum volume, not a maximum one. Thus, the orange peaks in fact represent the
worst solutions to this problem. Note that there are 16 of these peaks in the entire range
and that they are rounded. When we look at the bottom of this fitness landscape, we get
a rather different view:
Page 14 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
It would appear that the lowest points in this landscape (the minimum bounding-boxes)
are both fewer in number and of a different kind. We only get 8 optimal solutions and
they are all very sharp, indicating a somewhat more fragile state.
Still, on the whole we have nothing to complain about. All the solutions are of equal
quality and there are no local optima at all. We can generalize this landscape to a 2dimensional graph:
Page 15 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
No matter where you end up as an ancestral

genome, your blood-line will always find its way
to a minimum bounding box. There's nowhere
for it to get 'stuck'. So it's really just a question
about who gets there first. If we look at a slightly
more complex fitness graph, it becomes apparent
that this need not be the case:
This fitness landscape has two kinds of solutions. The high quality sharp ones near the bottom of the graph and the low quality flat ones
near the top. The basin of attraction is given for
both solutions (yellow for high quality, pink for
low quality) and you can see that about half of
the model space is attracted to the low quality
solutions.
An even worse example (flipped upright again this time, so high values indicate good
solutions) would be the following fitness landscape:
Page 16 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
The basins for these peaks are very small indeed

and therefore easy to miss by a random sampling of the landscape. As soon as a lucky
genome finds the peak on the left, its offspring
will rapidly populate the low peak causing the
rest of the population to go extinct. It is now
even less likely that the better peak on the right will be found. The smaller the basins for
solution, the harder it is to solve a problem with an evolutionary algorithm.
Another example of a cumbersome problem to solve would be a discontinuous fitness

landscape:
Even though there are strictly speaking no local

optima, there is also no 'improvement' on the
plateaus. A genome which finds itself in the middle of one of these horizontal patches doesn't
know where to go. If it takes a step to the left,
nothing changes. If it takes a step to the right,
nothing changes. There's no 'pressure' in this fitness landscape, so all the genomes will wander about aimlessly, until one of them has
the good fortune to suddenly step onto a higher plateau. At this point it will quickly
dominate the gene-pool and the wandering starts again until the next plateau is accidentally found.
Even worse than this though is a landscape that has a high degree of noise or chaos. A
Page 17 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
landscape may be continuous and yet feature so much detail that it becomes impossible
to make any intelligible pronunciations regarding the fitness of a local patch:
In a landscape like this, mommy and daddy may

both be very similar and both be very fit, but
when they mate the offspring might end up in
one of the fissures. A landscape like this defies
navigation.
Selection Mechanisms
Biological Evolution proceeds by Natural Selection. The ruthless force identified by Darwin as the arbiter of progress. Put simply, Natural Selection affects the direction of the
gene-pool over time by regulating who gets to mate. In extreme cases mating is prevented because a specific genome is so unfit that the bearer cannot survive until reproductive age. Another rather extreme case would be sterility. However, there's a myriad
ways in which Natural Selection can make it difficult or impossible for certain individuals to pass on their genetic footprint.
However, Natural Selection isn't the only game in town. For a long time now humans
have been using Artificial Selection in order to breed specific characteristics into a
(sub)species. When we try to solve problems using an Evolutionary Solver, we always
use some form of artificial selection. There's no such thing as sex or gender in the computer. The process of selection is also much simpler than in nature, as there is basically
Page 18 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
only one question that needs to be answered: Who gets to mate?
Allow me to enumerate the mechanisms for parent selection that are available in Galapagos. This is only a small subset of the selection algorithms that are possible, but they
seem to cover the basics rather well.
First off, we have Isotropic Selection, which is the simplest kind of algorithm you can
imagine. In fact, it is the absence of a selection algorithm. In Isotropic Selection everyone
gets to mate:
No matter where you find yourself on this fitness graph, your chances of ending up in a mating couple are constant. You might think that
this is a particularly pointless selection strategy
as it does nothing to further the evolution of the gene-pool. But it is not without precedent in nature. Take for example wind-pollination or coral spawning. If you're a sexually functioning member of such a species, you get to play ball come mating season. Another example would be females in a walrus colony. Every female in a colony gets to
breed with the dominant male, no matter how fit or unfit she is. Isotropic Selection is
certainly not without function either. For one, it dampens the speed with which a population runs uphill. It therefore acts as a safe-guard against a premature colonization of a
local -and possibly inferior- optimum.
Another mechanism available in Galapagos is Exclusive Selection, where only the top N%
of the population get to mate:
Page 19 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
If you're lucky enough to be in the top N%,

you'll likely have multiple offspring. A good
analogy in nature for Exclusive Selection would
be Walrus males. There's only a few harems to
go around and far too many males to assign them all (a harem of one female after all is
not really a harem). The flunkies get to sit on the side-line without a single chance to father a walrus baby, doing whatever it is walruses do when they can't get any action.
Another common pattern in nature is Biased Selection, where the chance of mating increases as the fitness increases. This is something we typically see with species that form
stable couples. Everyone is basically capable of finding a mate, but the really attractive
individuals manage to get a lot of hanky-panky on the side, thus increasing their
chances of becomes genetic founders for future generations. Biased Selection can be amplified by using power functions, which have the effect of flattening or exaggerating the
curve.
Coupling Algorithms
Coupling is the process of finding mates. Once a genome has been elected to mate by the
active Selection Algorithm, it has to pick a mate from the population to complete the act.
There are of course many ways in which mate selection could occur, but Galapagos at
the moment only allows one; selection by genomic distance. In order to explain this in
detail, I should first tell you how a Genome Map works. This
Page 20 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
is a Genome Map. It displays all the genomes (individuals) in a certain population as dots on a
grid. The distance between two genomes on the
grid is roughly analogous with the distance between the genomes in gene-space. I say roughly
because it is in fact impossible to draw a map
with exact distances. A single genome is defined
by a number of genes. We assume that all the
genomes in a species have the same number of
genes (this is not technically a limitation of Evolutionary Algorithms, even though it is
currently a limitation of Galapagos). Therefore the distance between two genomes is an
N-Dimensional value, where N equals the number of genes. It is not possible to accurately display an N-Dimensional point cloud on a 2-Dimensional screen so the Genome
Map is only a coarse approximation. It also follows that the axes of this graph have no
meaning whatsoever, the only information a Genome Map conveys is which genomes
are more or less similar (close together) and which genomes are more or less different
(far apart).
Imagine you are an individual that has been selected for mating (yay). The population is
well distributed and you are somewhere near the average (I'm sure you are a wildly
original and delightful person in real life, but for the time being try to imagine you are
in fact sort of average):
Page 21 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
That red dot is you. Who looks attractive?
You could of course limit your search of potential partners to your immediate neighbourhood.
This means that you mate with individuals who
are very much like you and it means your offspring will also be very much like you.
When this is taken to extremes we call it incestuous mating behaviour and it can become detrimental pretty quickly. Biological incest has a
nasty habit of expressing unhealthy but recessive
genes, but in the digital world of Evolutionary
Solvers the biggest risk of incest is a rapid decline in population diversity. Low diversity decreases the chances of finding alternate solution
basins and thus it risks getting stuck in local optima.
The other extreme is to exclude everyone near you. You'll often hear it said that opposites attract, but that's true only up to a point. At some point the genomes at the other
end of the scale become so different as to be incompatible.
Page 22 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
This is called zoophilic mating and it can be

equally detrimental. This is especially true when
a population is not a single group of genomes,
but in fact contains multiple sub-species, each of
which is climbing their own little fitness peak.
You definitely do
not want
to mate
with
a
member
in a different
subspecies, as the offspring would likely land somewhere in the middle. And since these
two species are climbing different peaks, "in the middle" actually puts you in a fitness
valley.
It would seem that the best option is to balance in-breeding and out-breeding. To select
individuals that are not too close and not too far. In Galapagos you can specify an inbreeding factor (between -100% and +100%, total out-breeding vs. total in-breeding respectively) that allows you to guide this relative offset:
Page 23 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
Note that mate selection at present completely

ignores mate fitness. This is something that
needs looking into for future releases, but even
without any advanced selection algorithms the
solver still works.
Coalescence Algorithms
Once a mate has been selected, offspring needs to be generated. On the genetic level this
is anything but fun and games. The biological process of gene recombination is horrendously complicated and itself subject to evolution (meiotic drive for example). The digital
variant is much more basic. This is partially because genes in evolutionary algorithms
are not very similar to biological genes. Ironically, biological genes are far more digital
than programmatic genes. As Mendel discovered in the 1860's, genes are not continuously variable qualities. Instead they behave like on-off switches. Genes in evolutionary
solvers like Galapagos behave like floating point numbers, that can assume all the values between two numerical extremes.
When we mate two genomes, we need to decide what values to assign to the genes of
the offspring. Again, Galapagos provides several mechanisms for achieving this.
Page 24 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
Imagine we have two genomes of four genes each. There is

no gender and no sex-based characteristics in the solver so
the combination of M and D is potentially a completely symmetrical process. A mechanism that is somewhat synonymous with biological recombination is Crossover Coalescence.
In Crossover mating, junior inherits a random number of

genes from mommy and the remainder from daddy. In this
mechanism gene value is maintained.
Blend Coalescence will compute new values for genes based on both parents, basically averaging the values:
It is also possible to add a blending preference based on relative fitness. If mum is fitter than dad for example, her gene
values will be more prominent in the offspring:
Page 25 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
Mutation Factories
All the mechanisms we have discussed so far (Selection, Coupling and Coalescence) are
designed to improve the quality of solutions on a generation by generation basis. However all of them have a tendency to reduce the bio-diversity in a population. The only
mechanism which can introduce diversity is mutation. Several types of mutation are
available in the Galapagos core, though the nature of the implementation in Grasshopper at the moment restricts the possible mutation to only Point mutations.
Before we get to mutations though, I'd like to talk briefly about Genome Graphs. A popular way to display multi-dimensional points on a two-dimensional medium is to draw
them as a series of lines that connect different values on a set of vertical bars. Each bar
represents a single dimension. This way we can quite easily display not just points with
any number of dimensions, but even points with a different number of dimensions in
the same graph:
Page 26 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
Here for example we have a genome consisting of 5

genes. This genome is thus a point in the 5-dimensional
space that delineates this particular species. When G0
is drawn at !, it means that the value is one-third between the minimum and maximum allowed limits. The
benefit of this graph is that it becomes quite easy to spot sub-species in a population, as
well as lone individuals. When we apply mutations to a genome, we should see a
change in the graph, as every unique genome has a unique graph.
The above modification shows a Point Mutation, where

a single gene value is changed. This is currently the
only mutation type that is possible in Galapagos. We
could also swap two adjacent gene values, in which
case we get an Inversion Mutation:
Inversion mutations are only useful when subsequent

genes have a very specific relationship. It tends to drastically modify a genome and thus in most cases also
drastically modify fitness. This is almost always a detrimental operation.
Two examples of mutations that cannot be used on a species which requires a fixed
number of genes are Addition and Deletion mutations.
Page 27 of 28
10/23/11 7:50 PM
Conclusion
Galapagos is still a very young product and hasn't really had time to position itself firmly in any work-flow, provided that it could. It seems to be capable of solving relatively
small problems quite quickly, but it certainly needs a lot of work to make it more robust
and usable. It is likely that the most effective applications for a solver of this type and
capability are small or partial problems. To try and evolve anything complicated will almost certainly result in frustration.
Page 28 of 28

GH Galapagos

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

GH Galapagos

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving

There is nothing particularly new about Evolutionary Solvers or Genetic Algorithms.

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

Pros and Cons

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

Secondly, Evolutionary Algorithms do not guarantee a solution. Unless a predefined

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

At least in Evolutionary Computation, fitness is a very easy concept. Fitness is whatever

When we need to mill or 3D-print a shape, it is

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

When we pick two rotational angles at random,

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

No matter where you end up as an ancestral

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

The basins for these peaks are very small indeed

Another example of a cumbersome problem to solve would be a discontinuous fitness

Even though there are strictly speaking no local

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

In a landscape like this, mommy and daddy may

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

only one question that needs to be answered: Who gets to mate?

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

If you're lucky enough to be in the top N%,

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

That red dot is you. Who looks attractive?

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

This is called zoophilic mating and it can be

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

Note that mate selection at present completely

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

Imagine we have two genomes of four genes each. There is

In Crossover mating, junior inherits a random number of

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

Here for example we have a genome consisting of 5

The above modification shows a Point Mutation, where

Inversion mutations are only useful when subsequent

Evolutionary Principles applied to Problem Solving - Grasshopper

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen