Abstract
One of the main limitations for the functional
scalability of automated design systems is the
representation used for encoding designs. I argue that
generative representations, those which are capable of
reusing elements of the encoded design in the
translation to the actual artifact, are better suited
for automated design because reuse of building blocks
captures some design dependencies and improves the
ability to make large changes in design space. To
support this argument I compare a generative and a
nongenerative representation on a table-design problem
and find that designs evolved with the generative
representation have higher fitness and a more regular
structure. Additionally the generative representation
was found to capture better the height dependency
between table legs and also produced a wider range of
table designs.
Users
Please
log in to take part in the discussion (add own reviews or comments).