A Flexible Dissimilarity Measure for Active and Passive 3D Structures and Its Application in the Fitness–Distance Analysis

  • Maciej KomosinskiEmail author
  • Agnieszka Mensfelt
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11454)


Evolutionary design of 3D structures – either static structures, or equipped with some sort of a control system – is one of the hardest optimization tasks. One of the reasons are rugged fitness landscapes resulting from complex and non-obvious genetic representations of such structures and their genetic operators. This paper investigates global convexity of fitness landscapes in optimization tasks of maximizing velocity and height of both active and passive structures. For this purpose, a new dissimilarity measure for 3D active and passive structures represented as undirected graphs is introduced. The proposed measure is general and flexible – any vertex properties can be easily incorporated as dissimilarity components. The new measure was compared against the previously introduced measure in terms of triangle inequality satisfiability, changes in raw measure values and the computational cost. The comparison revealed improvements for triangle inequality and raw values at the expense of increased computational complexity. The investigation of global convexity of the fitness landscape, involving the fitness–distance correlation analysis, revealed negative correlation between the dissimilarity of the structures and their fitness for most of the investigated cases.


Evolutionary design 3D structure Dissimilarity measure Optimization Global convexity 


  1. 1.
    Hornby, G.S., Globus, A., Linden, D.S., Lohn, J.D.: Automated antenna design with evolutionary algorithms. In: AIAA Space, pp. 19–21 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Funes, P., Pollack, J.: Evolutionary body building: adaptive physical designs for robots. Artif. Life 4(4), 337–357 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Byrne, J., et al.: Combining Structural Analysis and Multi-Objective Criteria for Evolutionary Architectural Design. In: Chio, C., et al. (eds.) EvoApplications 2011. LNCS, vol. 6625, pp. 204–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kicinger, R., Arciszewski, T., DeJong, K.: Evolutionary design of steel structures in tall buildings. J. Comput. Civil Eng. 19(3), 223–238 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lipson, H., Pollack, J.B.: Automatic design and manufacture of robotic lifeforms. Nature 406(6799), 974–978 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nolfi, S., Floreano, D.: Evolutionary Robotics: The Biology, Intelligence, and Technology of self-Organizing Machines. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Corucci, F.: Evolutionary developmental soft robotics: towards adaptive and intelligent soft machines following nature’s approach to design. In: Laschi C., Rossiter J., Iida F., Cianchetti M., Margheri L. (eds) Soft Robotics: Trends, Applications and Challenges. Biosystems & Biorobotics, vol 17, pp. 111–116. Springer, Cham (2017).
  8. 8.
    Sims, K.: Evolving 3D morphology and behavior by competition. Artif. Life 1(4), 353–372 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Komosinski, M., Ulatowski, S.: Framsticks: Creating and Understanding Complexity of Life, 2nd edn. pp. 107–148. Springer, New York (2009). Chapter 5
  10. 10.
    Komosinski, M.: Applications of a similarity measure in the analysis of populations of 3D agents. J. Comput. Sci. 21, 407–418 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bentley, P.J.: An introduction to evolutionary design by computers. In: Bentley, P.J. (ed.) Evolutionary Design by Computers, 1st edn. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hornby, G.S., Pollack, J.B.: Generative representations for evolutionary design automation. Brandeis University (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith, T., Husbands, P., O’Shea, M.: Fitness landscapes and evolvability. Evol. Comput. 10(1), 1–34 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    He, J., Reeves, C., Witt, C., Yao, X.: A note on problem difficulty measures in black-box optimization: classification, realizations and predictability. Evol. Comput. 15(4), 435–443 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boese, K.D.: Cost versus distance in the traveling salesman problem. UCLA Computer Science Department (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pitzer, E., Affenzeller, M.: A comprehensive survey on fitness landscape analysis. In: Fodor J., Klempous R., Suárez Araujo C.P. (eds) Recent Advances in Intelligent Engineering Systems, vol. 378, pp. 161–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).
  17. 17.
    Jones, T., Forrest, S.: Fitness distance correlation as a measure of problem difficulty for genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pp. 184–192. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Freisleben, B., Merz, P.: New genetic local search operators for the traveling salesman problem. Parallel Problem Solving from Nature - PPSN IV, pp. 890–899 (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Freisleben, B., Merz, P.: A genetic local search algorithm for solving symmetric and asymmetric traveling salesman problems. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 616–621. IEEE (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jaszkiewicz, A., Kominek, P.: Genetic local search with distance preserving recombination operator for a vehicle routing problem. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 151(2), 352–364 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jaszkiewicz, A., Kominek, P., Kubiak, M.: Adaptation of the genetic local search algorithm to a car sequencing problem. In: 7th National Conference on Evolutionary Algorithms and Global Optimization, Kazimierz Dolny, Poland, pp. 67–74 (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kubiak, M.: Systematic construction of recombination operators for the vehicle routing problem. Found. Comput. Decis. Sci. 29(3) (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cyr, C.M., Kimia, B.B.: 3D object recognition using shape similiarity-based aspect graph. In: Proceedings Eighth IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2001, vol. 1, pp. 254–261 (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barthel, D., Hirst, J.D., Błażewicz, J., Burke, E.K., Krasnogor, N.: ProCKSI: a decision support system for protein (structure) comparison, knowledge, similarity and information. BMC Bioinform. 8(1), 416 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bero, S.A., Muda, A.K., Choo, Y.H., Muda, N.A., Pratama, S.F.: Similarity measure for molecular structure: a brief review. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 892(1), 012015 (2017). Scholar
  26. 26.
    Komosinski, M., Kubiak, M.: Quantitative measure of structural and geometric similarity of 3D morphologies. Complexity 16(6), 40–52 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Komosinski, M., Ulatowski, S.: Framsticks web site (2019).
  28. 28.
    Komosinski, M., Ulatowski, S.: Framsticks SDK (Software Development Kit).
  29. 29.
    Cox, T.F., Cox, M.A.A.: Multidimensional Scaling. Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kuhn, H.W.: The hungarian method for the assignment problem. Nav. Res. Logist. Q. 2(1–2), 83–97 (1955)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Munkres, J.: Algorithms for the assignment and transportation problems. J. Soc. Ind. Appl. Math. 5(1), 32–38 (1957)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Poznan University of TechnologyPoznanPoland

Personalised recommendations