Design Agents and the Need for High-Dimensional Perception

  • Sean Hanna


Designed artefacts may be quantified by any number of measures. This paper aims to show that in doing so, the particular measures used may matter very little, but as many as possible should be taken. A set of building plans is used to demonstrate that arbitrary measures of their shape serve to classify them into neighbourhood types, and the accuracy of classification increases as more are used, even if the dimensionality of the space in which classification occurs is held constant. It is further shown that two autonomous agents may independently choose sets of attributes by which to represent the buildings, but arrive at similar judgements as more are used. This has several implications for studying or simulating design. It suggests that quantitative studies of collections of artefacts may be made without requiring extensive knowledge of the best possible measures—often impossible in real, ill-defined, design situations. It suggests a means by which the generation of novelty can be explained in a group of agents with different ways of seeing a given event. It also suggests that communication can occur without the need for predetermined codes or protocols, introducing the possibility of alternative human-computer interfaces that may be useful in design.


Classification Error Similar Judgement Attribute Dimension Design Agent Design Artefact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Newell, A., Simon, H.: Computer Science as Empirical Enquiry: Symbols and Search. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery 19, 105–132 (1976)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brooks, R.A.: Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence 47, 139–159 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dreyfus, H.: Why Heideggerian AI failed and how fixing it would require making it more Heideggerian. Artificial Intelligence 171, 1137–1160 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haugeland, J.: The Nature and Plausibility of Cognitivism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2, 215–260 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Simon, H.: The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schön, D.A.: Displacement of Concepts. Tavistock, London (1963)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Akin, Ö., Akin, C.: Frames of reference in architectural design: analysing the hyperacclamation (A-h-a-!). Design Studies 17(4), 341–361 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clarke, D.L.: Analytical Archaeology. Methuen & Co., London (1968)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Snodgrass, A.B., Coyne, R.D.: Is designig hermeneutical? Architectural Theory Review 2(1), 65–97 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Czikszentmihalyi, M.: Society, culture, and person: a systems view of creativity. In: Sternberg, R.J. (ed.) The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives, pp. 325–339. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hillier, B., Hanson, J.: The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clark, A., Thornton, C.: Trading spaces: Computation, representation and the limits of uninformed learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20, 57–90 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rittel, H.W.J., Webber, M.M.: Planning problems are wicked problems. In: Cross, N. (ed.) Developments in Design Methodology. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1984)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koestler, A.: The act of creation. Hutchinson (1964)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Westfall, C.W.: Building Types. In: van Pelt, R.J., Westfall, C.W. (eds.) Architectural Principles in the Age of Historicism. Yale University Press, New Haven (1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobsen, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., Angel, S.: A Pattern Language. Oxford University Press, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rossi, A.: The Architecture of the City. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Colquhoun, A.: Typology and Design Method, Arena, 83: 11–14 Reprinted in Colquhoun A. Essays in Architectural Criticism: Modern Architecture and Historical Change. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1967)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Conroy-Dalton, R., Kirsan, C.: Small graph matching and building genotypes. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 35(5), 810–830 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hanna, S.: Spectral comparison of large urban graphs. In: Koch, D., Marcus, L., Steen, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium. Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hanna, S.: Defining Implicit Objective Functions for Design Problems. In: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO 2007. ACM Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Laskari, S., Hanna, S., Derix, C.: Urban identity through quantifiable spatial attributes: Coherence and dispersion of local identity through the automated comparative analysis of building block plans. In: Gero, J.S., Goel, A. (eds.) Design Computing and Cognition 2008. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Psarra, S., Grajewski, T.: Describing shape and shape complexity using local properties. In: Third International Space Syntax Symposium, Atlanta (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boden, M.A.: The creative mind: myths & mechanisms. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London (1990)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Saunders, R., Gero, J.S.: Artificial creativity: A synthetic approach to the study of creative behaviour. In: Gero, J.S., Maher, M.L. (eds.) Computational and Cognitive Models of Creative Design V, Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, pp. 113–139. University of Sydney, Sydney (2001)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hanna, S.: Where creativity comes from: the social spaces of embodied minds. In: Gero, J.S., Maher, M.L. (eds.) Proceedings of HI 2005, Sixth International Conference of Computational and Cognitive Models of Creative Designs. University of Sydney, Sydney (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cropley, A.J.: Definitions of creativity. In: Runco, M.A., Pritzer, S.R. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Creativity, pp. 511–524. Academic Press, San Diego (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sean Hanna
    • 1
  1. 1.University College LondonUK

Personalised recommendations