Modeling Design Exploration as Co‐Evolution

Maher, Mary Lou; Poon, Josiah

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8667.1996.tb00323.x

Cited by 192 publications

(109 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Design studies research emphasizes the coevolution of problems and solutions [49,50]. For example, in Ref [50], Maher and Poon describe the design process as an iterative coevolution of the "design/ solution space" and the "problem space." As an engineer works to develop a design or solution, they discover more constraints and the problem they are attempting to solve evolves.…”

Section: A Implications For Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Problematizing as a scientific endeavor

Phillips

Watkins

Hammer

2017

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The work of physics learners at all levels revolves around problems. Physics education research has inspired attention to the forms of these problems, whether conceptual or algorithmic, closed or open response, well or ill structured. Meanwhile, it has been the work of curriculum developers and instructors to develop these problems. Physics education research has supported these efforts with studies of students problem solving and the effects of different kinds of problems on learning. In this article we argue, first, that developing problems is central to the discipline of physics. It involves noticing a gap of understanding, identifying and articulating its precise nature, and motivating a community of its existence and significance. We refer to this activity as problematizing, and we show its importance by drawing from writings in physics and philosophy of science. Second, we argue that students, from elementary age to adults, can problematize as part of their engaging in scientific inquiry. We present four cases, drawing from episodes vetted by a panel of collaborating faculty in science departments as clear instances of students doing science. Although neither we nor the scientists had problematizing in mind when screening cases, we found it across the episodes. We close with implications for instruction, including the value of helping students recognize and manage the situation of being confused but not yet having a clear question, and implications for research, including the need to build problematizing into our models of learning.

show abstract

Section: A Implications For Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Problematizing as a scientific endeavor

Phillips

Watkins

Hammer

2017

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The model of evolutionary design has been used to explain real design projects such as the Sydney Opera House [6] and as the basis for developing a computational model of the design of braced frames [7] and floor plans [8].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adapting Problem Specifications and Design Solutions Using Co-evolution

Maher

Garza

2002

Adaptive Computing in Design and Manufacture V

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we present a co-evolutionary model of design in which potential solutions to a design problem evolve in parallel with the problem description. This computational model is based on the observation that creative designers often refine and revise the design requirements of a particular problem at the same time as they generate and propose an evolving series of potential solutions to the problem. Genetic algorithms guide the search for a solution using a fixed fitness function, and revisions to the crtieria for the best solution involve manually modifying the fitness function. In our model of co-evolutionary design, the fitness function is automatically changed as the problem space and solution space co-evolve. In the paper we describe the model in general, show how we have applied it to the design domain of structural engineering, and present some preliminary experimental results. IntroductionGenerally, a design problem originates from a need that is specified as a set of requirements and results in a design solution. A characteristic of designing is the reconsideration and revision of the requirements while developing a solution. This reconsideration of the requirements is integrally related to ideas proposed and developed in the design solution. We present a computational model of design that can reason about and change populations of requirements and solutions through the application of a co-evolutionary algorithm. There is no user involvement in our framework: the co-evolutionary model is autonomous. This paper reports on recent research that characterises the properties of co-evolutionary design, as introduced in [1]. Specifically, the development of a model of co-evolutionary design raises questions regarding fitness, convergence, and the interaction between problem specification and design solution. The issue of "fitness" in co-evolutionary design is raised because we assume a model in which the requirements, as goals of the design process, change, and therefore the fitness measure of proposed solutions may change during the course of problem solving and convergence may not mean achieving the "best" fitness. In our formulation of co-evolutionary design, we separate the idea of fitness from convergence, present the idea of convergence as achieving a more homogenous search space, and propose that termination is based on an analysis of the alternative fitness functions. Design as Co-evolutionCo-evolutionary systems are those in which there are two or more interacting search spaces. Paredis [2] provides an overview of co-evolutionary algorithms. The co-evolutionary approach is suitable for solving complex problems that can be decomposed into a set of sub-problems when these sub-problems can be solved by using conventional GA or EC methods. Solving the sub-problems will lead to solving the original problem. CCGA-1, described in [3], allows n species to evolve independently. We have developed co-evolutionary design systems that model interacting search spaces related to design problem solving...

show abstract

“…These authors develop a variant of FBS which illustrates that design can be viewed in terms of two genetic operators iteratively applied to a population of potential solutions: crossover, in which subsolutions are transplanted across designs, and mutation, in which subsolutions within one solution are changed by redesign. Maher and Poon (1996) apply a similar evolutionary perspective with a focus on exploration in design. In this context, exploration refers to the process by which designers come to understand more about a problem as they consider potential solution concepts.…”

Section: Models That Represent Design As Elementary Abstract Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this context, exploration refers to the process by which designers come to understand more about a problem as they consider potential solution concepts. In their model, Maher and Poon (1996) propose that problem and solution can be conceptualised as evolving genomes that influence the fitness function for each other. This is described as a coevolutionary process which proceeds until problem and solution definitions are both acceptable and compatible with one another (Maher 2000).…”

Section: Models That Represent Design As Elementary Abstract Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Process models in design and development

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many models of the design and development process have been published over the years, representing it for different purposes and from different points of view. This article contributes an organising framework that clarifies the topology of the literature on these models and thereby relates the main perspectives that have been developed. The main categories of model are introduced. Their contexts, advantages, and limitations are considered through discussion of selected examples. It is demonstrated that the framework integrates coverage of earlier reviews and as such provides a new perspective on the literature. Finally, key characteristics of design and development process models are discussed considering their applications in practice, and opportunities for further research are suggested. Overall, the article should aid researchers in positioning new models and new modelling approaches in relation to state-of-the-art. It may also be of interest to practitioners and educators seeking an overview of developments in this area.

show abstract

Modeling Design Exploration as Co‐Evolution

Cited by 192 publications

References 5 publications

Problematizing as a scientific endeavor

Problematizing as a scientific endeavor

Adapting Problem Specifications and Design Solutions Using Co-evolution

Process models in design and development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About