Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 123–132 | Cite as

Experiments in design synthesis when behavior is determined by shape

Original Article

Abstract

As we rapidly approach the day of transitive materials, made of individual elements that sense and actuate and can be programmed and reprogrammed, it is time to think about how to design things using these new materials. Our roBlocks construction kit toy teaching children about emergent behavior in complex systems serves as an example for investigating the challenges of designing things made of transitive materials. The roBlocks kit comprises heterogeneous modular robotics components that exhibit modularity, one-to-one mapping between form and behavior, and non-hierarchical control; and these features make it appropriate for experimenting with emergent behavior. However, as the numbers of robotic components scales to the orders of magnitude needed to consider them as material these same features also make it difficult to apply traditional methods to design constructions with desired behaviors. To understand this design space we built, the Erstwhile Agent that uses an evolutionary approach to automatically synthesize roBlocks constructions to meet specified desiderata.

Keywords

Programmable matter Evolutionary algorithms Material computing Automated design synthesis 

References

  1. 1.
    Goldstein SC, Campbell JD, Mowry TC (2005) Programmable matter. IEEE Comput 38(6):99–101Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murata S et al (2002) M-TRAN: self-reconfigurable modular robotic system. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 7(4):431–441CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nagpal R (2002) Self-assembling global shape, using ideas from biology and origami. In: Hull T (ed) Origami3:3rd international meeting of origami science, mathematics and technology (3OSME). A.K. Peters, pp 219–231Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rus D, Vona M (2000) A physical implementation of the self-reconfiguring crystalline robot, in Intl Conf Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp 1726–1732Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Støy K, Lyder A, Garcia RFM, Christensen D (2007) Hierarchical robots, in workshop on self-reconfiguring robots at intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yim M, Duff D, Roufas K (2000) PolyBot: a modular reconfigurable robot, in international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, San Francisco, pp 515–519Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harel I (1991) Children designers: interdisciplinary constructions for learning, knowing mathematics in a Computer-Rich School. Ablex Publishing Corporation, NorwoodGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Papert S (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Resnick M, Silverman B (2005) Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids, in interaction design and children (IDC). ACM, Boulder, pp 117–122Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Watanabe R et al. (2004) The soul of activecube – implementing a flexible, multimodal, three-dimensional spatial tangible interface, in Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI international conference on advanced computer entertainment technology ACE 2004, pp. 173–180Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anderson D, Frankel J., Marks J., Agarwala A., Beardsley P, Hodgins J, Leigh D, Ryall K, Sullivan E, Yedidia J (2000) Tangible Interaction + Graphical Interpretation: a new approach to 3D modeling, in SIGGRAPH 2000. ACM. pp 393–402Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McNerney TS (2004) From turtles to tangible programming bricks: explorations in physical language design. Personal Ubiquitous Comput 8:326–337Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schweikardt E (2008) Designing modular robots. PhD dissertation, computational design, Carnegie Mellon UniversityGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schweikardt E, Gross M (2008) The robot is the program: interacting with roBlocks. In Tangible, embedded interaction. ACM, BonnGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schweikardt E, Gross MD (2006) roBlocks: a robotic construction kit for mathematics and science education. In: International conference on multimodal interfaces (ICMI). ACM, Banff, pp 72–75Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schweikardt E, Gross MD (2007) A brief survey of distributed computational toys. In: First IEEE workshop on digital game and intelligent toy enhanced learning (DIGITEL). Jhongli Taiwan, pp 57–64Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schweikardt E, Gross MD (2008) Learning about complexity with modular robots. In: The 2nd IEEE international workshop on digital game and intelligent toy enhanced learning. IEEE, Banff, pp 116–123Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Braitenberg V (1984) Vehicles: experiments in synthetic psychology. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bentley P (ed) (1999) Evolutionary design by computers. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Funes P, Pollack J (1997) Computer evolution of buildable objects for evolutionary design by computers. In: Phil Husbands I H (ed) Fourth European conference on artificial life. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cagan J, Campbell MI, Finger S, Tomiyama T (2005) A Framework for computational design synthesis: model and applications. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 5(3):171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sharkey NE, Heemskerk J (1997) The neural mind and the robot. In: Browne AJ (ed) Neural network perspectives on cognition and adaptive robotics. IOP Press, Bristol, pp 169–194Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dourish P (2001) Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Baker JE (1987) Reducing bias and inefficiency in the selection algorithm. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on genetic algorithms and their application. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hornby GS, Lipson H, Pollack JB (2003) Generated representations for the automated design of modular physical robots. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 19(4):703–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sims K (1994) Evolving virtual creatures. In: International conference on computer graphics and interactive techniquesGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brooks R (1991) Intelligence without representation. Artif Intell 47:139–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cornell Computational Synthesis Lab, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Computational Design Lab, School of ArchitectureCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations