MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080991325 · doi:10.1109/cec.2013.6557615

Generative representations for artificial architecture and passive solar performance

2013· article· en· W2080991325 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEvolutionary Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModularity (biology)Computer scienceHierarchyGenerative grammarSet (abstract data type)Block (permutation group theory)Genetic programmingGenerative DesignArtificial intelligenceEvolutionary algorithmReuseDomain (mathematical analysis)Machine learningTheoretical computer scienceProgramming languageEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores how the use of generative representations influences the quality of solutions in evolutionary design problems. A genetic programming system is developed with individuals encoded as generative representations. Two research goals motivate this work. One goal is to examine Hornby's features and measures of modularity, reuse and hierarchy in new and more complex evolutionary design problems. In particular, we consider a more difficult problem domain where the generated 3D models are no longer constrained by voxels. Experiments are carried out to generate 3D models which grow towards a set of target points. The results show that the generative representations with the three features of modularity, regularity and hierarchy performed best overall. Although the measures of these features were largely consistent with those of Hornby, a few differences were found. Our second research goal is to use the best performing encoding on some 3D modeling problems that involve passive solar performance criteria. Here, the system is challenged with generating forms that optimize exposure to the Sun. This is complicated by the fact that a model's structure can interfere with solar exposure to itself; for example, protrusions can block Sun exposure to other model elements. Furthermore, external environmental factors (geographic location, time of the day, time of the year, other buildings in the proximity) may also be relevant. Experimental results were successful, and the system was shown to scale well to the architectural problems studied.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEvolutionary Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207