Using the Phase Space to Design Complexity - Design Methodology for Distributed Control of Architectural Robotic Elements

Architecture that is responsive, adaptive, or interactive can contain active architectural elements or robotic sensor-actuator systems. The consideration of architectural robotic elements that utilize distributed control and distributed communication allows for self-organization, emergence, and evolution on site in real-time. The potential complexity of behaviors in such architectural robotic systems requires design methodology able to encompass a range of possible outcomes, rather than a single solution. We present an approach of adopting an aspect of complexity science and applying it to the realm of computational design in architecture, specifically by considering the phase space and related concepts. We consider the scale and predictability of certain design characteristics, and originate the concept of a formation space extension to the phase space, for design to deal directly with materializations left by robot swarms or elements, rather than robots' internal states. We detail a case study examination of design methodology using the formation space concept for assessment and decision-making in the design of active architectural artifacts.

[1]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  Pluralistic Modeling of Complex Systems , 2010, 1007.2818.

[2]  Jimmy Secretan,et al.  Picbreeder: evolving pictures collaboratively online , 2008, CHI.

[3]  Josh C. Bongard,et al.  Evolutionary robotics , 2013, CACM.

[4]  Martin Tamke,et al.  Narratives of making: thinking practice led research in architecture , 2009 .

[5]  Heiko Hamann,et al.  The Effect of Fitness Function Design on Performance in Evolutionary Robotics: The Influence of a Priori Knowledge , 2015, GECCO.

[6]  Thomas Schmickl,et al.  Evolving Diverse Collective Behaviors Independent of Swarm Density , 2015, GECCO.

[7]  Mary Katherine Heinrich,et al.  An Evolutionary Robotics Approach to the Control of Plant Growth and Motion: Modeling Plants and Crossing the Reality Gap , 2016, 2016 IEEE 10th International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems (SASO).

[8]  Formalizing the gene centered view of evolution , 1999 .

[9]  Stephen Wolfram,et al.  Universality and complexity in cellular automata , 1983 .

[10]  Justin Werfel,et al.  The evolution of reproductive restraint through social communication. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  Mike Hurley,et al.  Attractors: persistence, and density of their basins , 1982 .

[12]  Sebastian Risi,et al.  Flora Robotica - Mixed Societies of Symbiotic Robot-Plant Bio-Hybrids , 2015, 2015 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence.

[13]  Craig W. Reynolds Flocks, herds, and schools: a distributed behavioral model , 1998 .

[14]  Hiroki Sayama,et al.  Introduction to the Modeling and Analysis of Complex Systems , 2015 .

[15]  John H. Frazer,et al.  An Evolutionary Architecture , 1995 .

[16]  Ulf Dieckmann,et al.  The Geometry of Ecological Interactions: Simplifying Spatial Complexity , 2000 .

[17]  Jordan B. Pollack,et al.  Embodied Evolution: Distributing an evolutionary algorithm in a population of robots , 2002, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[18]  Yaneer Bar-Yam,et al.  Dynamics Of Complex Systems , 2019 .

[19]  S. Wolfram Statistical mechanics of cellular automata , 1983 .

[20]  Mary Katherine Heinrich,et al.  For Time-Continuous Optimisation: Replacing Automation with Interactive Visualisation in Multi-Objective Behavioural Design , 2016 .