Memetic Computing

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 19–33 | Cite as

A genotype-phenotype-fitness assessment protocol for evolutionary self-assembly Wang tiles design

Regular research paper

Abstract

In a previous work we have reported on the evolutionary design optimisation of self-assembling Wang tiles capable of arranging themselves together into a target structure. Apart from the significant findings on how self-assembly is achieved, nothing has been yet said about the efficiency by which individuals were evolved. Specially in light that the mapping from genotype to phenotype and from this to fitness is clearly a complex, stochastic and non-linear relationship. One of the most common procedures would suggest running many experiments for different configurations followed by a fitness comparison, which is not only time-consuming but also inaccurate for such intricate mappings. In this paper we aim to report on a complementary dual assessment protocol to analyse whether our genetic algorithm, using morphological image analyses as fitness function, is an effective methodology. Thus, we present here fitness distance correlation to measure how effectively the fitness of an individual correlates to its genotypic distance to a known optimum, and introduce clustering as a mechanism to verify how the objective function can effectively differentiate between dissimilar phenotypes and classify similar ones for the purpose of selection.

Keywords

Self-assembly Evolutionary design Genetic algorithm Fitness distance correlation Wang tiles Evolutionary optimisation design 

References

  1. 1.
    Altenberg L (1997) Fitness distance correlation analysis: an instructive counterexample. In: 7th International conference on genetic algorithms, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 57–64Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berkhin P (2002) Survey of Clustering Data Mining Techniques. Tech. rep, Accrue Software, San Jose, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berkhin P (2006) A survey of clustering data mining techniques. In: Nicholas C, Teboulle M, Kogan J (eds) Grouping multidimensional data. Springer, Berlin, pp 25–71Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brzustowski J Clustering Calculator, http://www2.biology.ualberta.ca/jbrzusto/cluster.php
  5. 5.
    Durbin R, Eddy S, Krogh A, Mitchison G (1998) Biological sequence analysis: probabilistic models of proteins and nucleic acids. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Halkidi M, Batistakis Y, Vazirgiannis M (2001) On clustering validation techniques. Intell Inf Syst 17(2–3):107–145MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hansen P, Jaumard B (1997) Cluster analysis and mathematical programming. Math Program 79(1–3):191–215MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henz SR, Huson DH, Auch AF, Nieselt-Struwe K, Schuster SC (2005) Whole-genome prokaryotic phylogeny. Bioinformatics 21(10):2329–2335Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jain AK, Murty MN, Flynn PJ (1999) Data clustering: a review. ACM Comput Surv 31(3):264–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jones T (1995) Evolutionary algorithms, fitness landscapes and search. PhD thesis, University of New MexicoGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones T, Forrest S (1995) Fitness distance correlation as a measure of problem difficulty for genetic algorithms. In: 6th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 184–192Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kamvar SD, Klein D, Manning CD (2002) Interpreting and extending classical agglomerative clustering algorithms using a model-based approach. In: 19th International conference on machine learning, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 283–290Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koljonen J (2006) On fitness distance distributions and correlations, GA performance, and population size of fitness functions with translated optima. In: Honkela T, Kortela J, Raiko T, Valpola H (eds) 9th Scandinavian conference on artificial intelligence. Finnish Artificial Intelligence Society, Espoo, pp 68–74Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kotsiantis S, Pintelas P (2004) Recent advances in clustering: a brief survey. Trans Inf Sci Appl 1(1):73–81Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krasnogor N, Pelta DA (2004) Measuring the similarity of protein structures by means of the universal similarity metric. Bioinformatics 20(7):1015–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krasnogor N, Gustafson S, Pelta D, Verdegay J (2008) Systems Self-Assembly: Multidisciplinary Snapshots. In: Studies in multidisciplinarity, vol 5. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li L, Siepmann P, Smaldon J, Terrazas G, Krasnogor N (2008) Automated self-assembling programming. In: Krasnogor N, Gustafson S, Pelta D, Verdegay JL (eds) Systems self-assembly: multidisciplinary snapshots. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Michielsen K, Raedt HD (2000) Morphological image analysis. Comput Phys Commun 1:94–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Michielsen K, Raedt HD (2001) Integral-geometry morphological image analysis. Phys Rep 347:461–538MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Quick RJ, Rayward-Smith VJ, Smith GD (1998) Fitness distance correlation and Ridge Functions. In: 5th International Conference on parallel problem solving from nature, Springer, London, pp 77–86Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rothemund PWK, Winfree E (2000) The program-size complexity of self-assembled squares (extended abstract). In: 32nd ACM symposium on theory of computing, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 459–468 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Terrazas G, Krasnogor N, Kendall G, Gheorghe M (2005) Automated tile design for self-assembly conformations. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, vol 2. IEEE Press, New York, pp 1808–1814Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Terrazas G, Gheorghe M, Kendall G, Krasnogor N (2007) Evolving tiles for automated self-assembly design. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation. IEEE Press, New York, pp 2001–2008Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Terrazas G, Siepman P, Kendal G, Krasnogor N (2007) An evolutionary methodology for the automated design of cellular automaton-based complex systems. J Cell Autom 2(1):77–102Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tomassini M, Vanneschi L, Collard P, Clergue M (2005) A study of fitness distance correlation as a difficulty measure in genetic programming. Evol Comput 13(2):213–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vanneschi L, Tomassini M (2003) Pros and cons of fitness distance correlation in genetic programming. In: Barry AM (ed) Bird of a Feather Workshops. In: Genetic and evolutionary computation conference, AAAI, Chigaco, pp 284–287Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vanneschi L, Tomassini M, Collard P, Clergue M (2003) Fitness distance correlation in structural mutation genetic programming. In: Ryan C, Soule T, Keijzer M, Tsang E, Poli R, Costa E (eds) Genetic programming. Proceedings of EuroGP, Springer, Essex, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2610. pp 455–464Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Winfree E, Yang X, Seeman NC (1996) Universal computation via self-assembly of DNA: Some theory and experiments. In: DNA based computers II. American Mathematical Society, vol 44, pp 191–213Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Interdisciplinary Computing and Complex Systems (ICOS) Research GroupSchool of Computer Science, University of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations