Slashdot Mirror


The Future of Optical Fibre

An anonymous reader writes "An Australian researcher has come up with a novel way of developing optical fibres. Steven Manos, a researcher at the Optical Fibre Technology Centre in Sydney, Australia has developed a method of using genetic algorithims for discovering optimal designs of optical fibres. An article on his work had this to say "The problem with designing optical fibres is starting with a specific set of criteria and then coming up with a design to fit this. The computer program developed by Manos, which is run on supercomputers, does this by mimicking the process of evolution. The computer program combines two patterns to create a third fibre 'offspring', which Manos described as "similar but a bit different". This process is repeated thousands of times with the 10 designs best suited for the particular application chosen to 'breed' again." Another case of "When in doubt, use brute force"?"

139 comments

  1. Brute force? Not exactly by haluness · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd rather not think of the method as brute force. Ok, its not like a design from first principles, but its still way to search the parameter space without having to test all coimbinations of parameters

    1. Re:Brute force? Not exactly by neilmoore67 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd rather not think of the method as brute force.

      Well said. Brute force would be enumerating every possible optical fibre and then testing them.

      This method is more subtle and converges to a close-to-optimal solution with less computer power having to be applied.

      --
      You've probably noticed that people's noses get bigger as they get older. That's because old people are huge liars.
    2. Re:Brute force? Not exactly by russellh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ok, its not like a design from first principles, but its still way to search the parameter space without having to test all coimbinations of parameters

      So-called first principles are explanation, not design tools. In other words - guess what? - nature is still surprising even if it can be "explained" by what we already know. We can explain stuff. It's the construction that we don't understand so well.

      --
      must... stay... awake...
    3. Re:Brute force? Not exactly by N+Monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd rather not think of the method as brute force.
      I'll agree with that. Brute force searching would go though all the parameters a la ..

      for(parameter1 = min limit ...)
      for(parameter2 = min limit ...)
      for(parameter3... )
      etc....
      Evaluate(parameter1, param2, ....)

      Genetic algorithms try to limit the search space by starting with "probably good" sets of parameter values and trying to generate other "probably good but hopefully better" parameter combinations.

      It won't necessarily find the absolute best set of parameters but it might find some reasonable ones.

    4. Re:Brute force? Not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wrong wrong wrong.

      GA is not guaranteed to converge to a "close-to-optimal solution". With results from a GA you do NOT know the solution is optimal. The **hope** is that by wiggling around somewhat in parallel with your genetic inputs that you have a better chance to find a global optima. That is just a hope.

    5. Re:Brute force? Not exactly by 955301 · · Score: 1

      But it does place the burden on the test criteria to remain static. If it changes for some reason, I would suspect that you'd have to start with your original set of candidates to avoid having "evolved" into a narrow subset which doesn't contain the theoretically ideal fibre for the new tests.

      In other words, consider the test criteria equivalent to Nature and the various fibers as types of animals. If Nature changes a few times, an animal ideal for the latest natural conditions might have been "breeded" out of existence by a previous change in Nature.

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    6. Re:Brute force? Not exactly by akaina · · Score: 1

      Not so. This method is considerably slower than bruteforce because it relies on a randomization seed at each iteration.

      Genetic algorithms can only be shown to find optimal paths quickly when the the path is already known.

      Genetic algorithms are re-discovery algorithms. They are never well applied to situations with an unknown search space.

      --
      Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose.
    7. Re:Brute force? Not exactly by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think as this method becomes more popular it will displace the older method of finding the most mathematically perfect solution and designing from that.

      In other word instead of fudging designs while you wait ten years for a mathematician to find the equations for the perfect wing, you just get a computer program to 'evolve' one for you. I'll bet this is what boeing and airbus already do.

      Sadly this will leave most applied physics mathematicians out of a job. Danm computers!! Taking our jobs and our women!!

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    8. Re:Brute force? Not exactly by neilmoore67 · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're quite right, I probably shouldn't have put it in such broad terms. Although I didn't claim that it would be optimal, or that you would know it was optimal.

      I suppose though that there might be a theoretical upper bound on the performance of a design (think about a spaceship, once you're close to c you're doing demonstratably well), so you at least know how close you are to the very best design

      --
      You've probably noticed that people's noses get bigger as they get older. That's because old people are huge liars.
    9. Re:Brute force? Not exactly by Sputum · · Score: 1
      Sadly this will leave most applied physics mathematicians out of a job. Danm computers!! Taking our jobs and our women!!

      Compouters don't need women so... First they take the jobs. Then they take the power. Then WE get the women.

      Sounds pretty sweet to me!

      --
      "What we imagine is order is merely the prevailing form of chaos"
    10. Re:Brute force? Not exactly by essreenim · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. Brute force on its own is inefficient and predominantly useless.
      Even at tasks it can be applied to - like key cracking etc, it is still practiacally uselless without a bit of intelligence build in.
      Even the best prime generators dont doa brute iteration through all integers > 0 to infinity - that would be pointless. You need to know where to look as well, or your waisting your time.
      I hope as computers continue to advance we dont forget this and simply rely on computing power. Because no matter how far computing powere progresses, we still need to use our own brains with it, not have them replaced alltogether, if we did that we wouldn't get anywhere ...

    11. Re:Brute force? Not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Brute force on its own is inefficient and predominantly useless.

      That's the way many people see genetic algorithms. All the "young kids" think they are so cool, and use them when the don't have a clue about how to solve a problem.

      I think the poster was making a just dig against genetic algorithms by asking if this was a place were they are needed or where someone didn't have the skill to find a decent method.

      I've seen people use genetic algorithms to solve linear problems. Brutes they are.

    12. Re:Brute force? Not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adrian Thompson "evolved" a tone discriminator using genetic algorithms in an FPGA with an 1800 bit search space. 100x100 cell array.

      In cases like these brute force would have been considerably slower.

    13. Re:Brute force? Not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those wishing to look this up, they are called local optimums.

    14. Re:Brute force? Not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      optima

    15. Re:Brute force? Not exactly by efflux · · Score: 1

      That's actually a very accurate description of how many genetic algorithms find their stopping conditions--either run for X generations, or stop when within a certain threshold of the theoretical maximum (or estimated maximum).
      What can be tough about such stopping conditions is making sure you have a good scoring function so that the optimal solution indeed scores best, and that you know what that score should be (though, of course, not how to get there, or the alg is pointless).

      --
      Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -- Walt Whitman
    16. Re:Brute force? Not exactly by neilmoore67 · · Score: 1

      I'm glad that I got something right, I was quite embarrassed that I posted such an poorly worded message in the first place that I had to correct it this way.

      --
      You've probably noticed that people's noses get bigger as they get older. That's because old people are huge liars.
    17. Re:Brute force? Not exactly by AmericanInKiev · · Score: 1

      This comment resounds with me.

      There are many things we can create a blackbox algorithm which represents the first principles as good of better than algorithms based on a full understanding of the first principles.

      Example:
      At a division of Honeywell, we worked on "flattening the response curve" of the crt.

      to do this the engineers developed complicated models based on energy output, gamma curves, crystal variations, etc and used these models to sense the point to point deviations across the crt and create a LUT to modulate the signal for flattest response.

      Using first principles they were able to slowly converge on a resonable solution.

      however - using historical data of solutions to prior deviations and their corresponding LUT value - it was possible to more quickly converge the tubes than using the first principle calculations.

      While it wasn't exactly a GA - it was accumulated knowledge reapplied to a problem - rather than complex equations - probably of the kind I couldn't understand.

      In my experience as a not physicist - I can solve problems related to physicists using models and other calculation more akin to brute force.

      Saved about 8 years and 100K tuition - cool.

      AIK

    18. Re:Brute force? Not exactly by Bloater · · Score: 1

      "In other words, consider the test criteria equivalent to Nature and the various fibers as types of animals. If Nature changes a few times, an animal ideal for the latest natural conditions might have been "breeded" out of existence by a previous change in Nature."

      That's why GA systems often randomly introduce brand new genomes to a population. It supplies some entropy to "tunnel" out of local minima.

    19. Re:Brute force? Not exactly by Rick.C · · Score: 1
      The problem with GA (and real life genetics) is that they get stuck in "saddle points" where further deviation seems to "get worse" in either direction. This can be mitigated somewhat by an intelligent choice of starting point, but you can never trust that the solution is even close to optimal. Even worse, GA with a human-selected starting point pretty much rules out finding a really novel, counter-intuitive solution.

      A true brute force, exhaustive search of all possible parameter values may take longer, but it leaves no stone unturned.

      --
      You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
      "Math in a song is good."-Linford
    20. Re:Brute force? Not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For simulated annealing it is well known that if you run long enough you will span the entire parameter space. Can't you show something similar for the popular versions of genetic algorithms? Don't they include random mutations?

      Anyway once you found a parameter set that is come close to an local optimum, then genetic algorithms must be slower than the competition. Given the nature of the problem it should be possible for them to calculate the gradient of the fittness function. This would allow them to use conjugate gradient or a quasi newtoon method.

  2. Question? by PhilippeT · · Score: 1

    Does his for lack of better words breading of fiber networks, did I understand this right, take into account some immovable obstacles?

    Or is this process used to design the cable itself?

    --
    A psychopath can't tell the difference between right and wrong. A sociopath knows the difference - he just doesn't care.
    1. Re:Question? by PingKing · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is specifically referring to the fabrication of fibre itself.

      Optical Fibre Technology Centre:
      http://www.oftc.usyd.edu.au/?section=fibre

      --

      Patriotism - the last resort of scoundrels.
    2. Re:Question? by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Can I get breaded fiber at Long John Silvers now, or that breading only available at select locations? I wonder what kind of batter they'd use...

      Sorry to not answer the question (it's designing the cable *fibers* themselves - hence "design of optical fibers" in the article description and the linked article all about optical fibers) - but the incorrectly spelled "breeding" makes me laugh. It's even more amusing when you *read the article* and see the word "breeding" used in the caption under the large photo.

  3. Google Cache by marnargulus · · Score: 0

    I have doubts of the .edu going down, but just incase here's the google cache: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:9vv96kkSrhsJ: www.oftc.usyd.edu.au/+&hl=en

  4. Mimicking evolution? by artemis67 · · Score: 1

    But he's already started off with intelligent design!

    1. Re:Mimicking evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evolution is intelligent design. It just lacks an intelligent (read: "God") designer.

      (I just spent 5 hours on a train reading Richard Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker so I'll be an expert in the field for approximately 30 more seconds...)

    2. Re:Mimicking evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evolution says nothing about the lack or presence of said designer, and it's not -that- intelligent - a lot of lifeforms are, from an engineer's perspective, neither efficient or smart (consider your own "plumbing").

      Intelligent design as the word itself, using the common definition, points to the likes of Behe and Dembski who keep repeating that evolution is going to be overthrown soon (like their ilk has been repeating for the past 150 years) and who insist half a mousetrap isn't good. Forget that the mousetrap has no parts that mutate, move out of themselves or reproduce, though...

    3. Re:Mimicking evolution? by greenhide · · Score: 1

      A few months back, there was a slashdot post about an evolved circuit board designed to perform some algorithm or possible in the best possible and most efficient way.

      One problem, though. The circuit board only worked *exactly* where the board was, because it actually made part of one of the wires behave like an antenna and it relied on the specific electromagnetic field in that location to run the circuit. As a result, moving the circuit board made it no longer function.

      I wonder whether the same result might occur if we turn to evolutionary design regularly. These were computer simulations, if I read the summary correctly (RTFA? I think not!), so these unforseen variables won't be present, but there still may be other factors that aren't being considered when designing these items evolutionarily (is that even a word?).

      --
      Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
    4. Re:Mimicking evolution? by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      It's an idea which helps explain some things which are tough to explain fully with evolution. It is important to keep asking questions, evolution does a pretty poor job at explaining some phenomenon.

      I personally doubt any religiously sponsored pseudo-science will result in a credible theory to help explain evolution, but you can't close your mind to the objections they raise. The little propellor-bacteria and similar systems are kind of cool... while evolution sort-of explains them, it is certainly a weakness in the theory.

      Honestly though, I do get tired of creationists blithering on about evolution. It's a scientific theory, no amount of bible-thumping will change it and it should not be considered a threat to any religion.

    5. Re:Mimicking evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, its more like selective breading with a goal in mind. Inteligence applied to existing conditions.

    6. Re:Mimicking evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe it was Dawkin's who, during an interview, stated that the reason people so quickly grabbed on to evolution was because it freed them to follow their sexual desires, NOT because of an abundance of evidence. He felt that the alternative to evolution was unacceptible, i.e. a God he might have to be accountable to. Classic ascientific reasoning.

  5. First cars... by longbot · · Score: 0, Troll

    ..and now this? What other uses could genetic algorithms have?

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it! --Longbottle
    1. Re:First cars... by agilen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, genetic algorithms are optimization algorithms. Any problem that is non-deterministic, as long as it can be defined with a "genotype", can probably be optimized with a genetic algorithm.

      One thing they get used for in academia is designing robots. Its very hard to teach a robot to do something like walking, and the optimal solution depends on so many factors that its hard for humans to hard-code the behavior. But set up the proper simulated environment on a computer, and have a genetic algorithm whose fitness function depends on the robots walking across a room, and you'll see some pretty amazing things...

    2. Re:First cars... by Wabin · · Score: 1

      I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say organisms. You know:trees, bacteria, viruses, birds, cats... I could go on. Come to think of it, it might even be a pretty good way to design humans!

      --
      Most exciting phrase in science: not "Eureka!" but "Hmm... That's funny..." -Asimov (abridged for \. limits)
    3. Re:First cars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huh huh...he said orgasms. Oh, wait...

  6. PDFs from Manos by antic · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are some interesting PDFs of papers co-written by Steven Manos available including these two:

    I'm not going to pretend that I know exactly what's going on, but the first of those two is worth looking at if you have even a passing interest. The second looks to be a little more towards the "deep end".

    --
    'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
    1. Re:PDFs from Manos by antic · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I've read them before. A friend of mine studies at the University of Sydney and has mentioned Steven Manos' research before.

      But thanks for the reply anyway.

      --
      'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
  7. Fucking hell why all the excitement about GA? by baadfood · · Score: 0, Troll

    I mean its like every tosser who works out that their specific problem can be described by a phase space comes to the startling conclusion that a genetic algorithm is a neato way to explore the said phase space? I think I should start submitting patent applications of the form "Method and algorithm for optimising , using a fitness function and genetic algorithms to find optima in a phase space".

    1. Re:Fucking hell why all the excitement about GA? by in7ane · · Score: 1

      The fundamental genetic algorithm and neural net research is quite interesting and has great potential. Most applications, like this, probably do not - it is very easy to get results out of a genetic algorithm (like already mentioned it's like brute force, but a bit 'smarter'). This is probably the reason we keep on hearing about the applications - it sounds good.

      The way a lot of genetic algorithm applications are approached it also seems that there is great potential for overfitting - remember that since it's non linear you will be a lot more likely to overfit.

    2. Re:Fucking hell why all the excitement about GA? by ezzzD55J · · Score: 1
      Hear, hear.

      I'm a bit puzzled by GA hoopla as well. Sure it can achieve results, but it's something of a copout. If GA's can do a reasonable job at optimising a (fitness) function (that's, after all, all they really try to do), then surely there's an actual special purpose algorithm that can do a better job.. (Although that goes quite directly to the heart of the P vs. NP question..)

      I think it's just people throwing GA's at a problem because it's quite easy and works slightly..

      I, for one, hope that one day someone will say P=NP, despite all the cryptographic problems we might get into then..

    3. Re:Fucking hell why all the excitement about GA? by DrMindWarp · · Score: 1
      I entirely agree. That's the problem with science as practised by humans - it moves from one bandwagon to another. The work still gets done, of course, but it always needs to be dressed up in the flavour of the month to get the money and publicity.

      There are dozens of parameter searching techniques that could be used to solve this problem. It may have been more useful to demonstrate these against the present algorithm to see how efficiently the space is examined and if the 'fitness' can be improved further. Who knows, perhaps someone with a better understanding or model of the optics could have derived a solution directly ?

    4. Re:Fucking hell why all the excitement about GA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Universities need funding, people want degrees bacause that's what employers want, the employers that went to university...
      It's a huge circle jerk. There's not much left to do for every person on earth to have a decent life, but we need to cling to our illusions to keep society working, right?

    5. Re:Fucking hell why all the excitement about GA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be pretty freakin' obvious, shouldn't it...

      It's clearly in some way advantageous to think that genetic algorithms (and phase spaces) are cool, and so over generations we've evolved into creatures that go crazy for genetic algorithms. Liking DNA analogies is coded in our DNA! (Everyone knows genetics geeks get all the chicks.)

  8. Much Better by irokie · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a much better example of the application of Genetic Algorithms than the story that was on slashdot the other day (can't find a link, the one about Formula One racing).

    in this case they have a very specific set of criteria.

    it didn't however mention in the article how they're testing the designs (did it?)...
    and are they actually manufacturing any of the designs that have come from thiss yet?

    --
    and if you see me strut, remind me of what left this outlaw torn...
    1. Re:Much Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > and are they actually manufacturing any of the designs that have come from thiss yet?

      Probably. The OFTC has its own manufacturing facility.

    2. Re:Much Better by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 1

      Googling is the solution to your problem...

      "site:slashdot.org formula one genetic" -> Breeding Race Cars With Genetic Algorithms

      --
      .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
    3. Re:Much Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they're testing the designs (did it?)...

      yes it did RTFA

  9. brute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how is this, a fine achivement of artificial inteligence labs, that is programs that have sex, a brute force approach?

    i refuse to believe that i was created by brute force, besides, dad is a nice guy

  10. Re:Pretty cool stuff. by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    America != World

  11. Only on slashdot... by Mateito · · Score: 5, Funny

    .. would breeding be regarded as "brute forcing". :)

    1. Re:Only on slashdot... by maduro55 · · Score: 1

      Not always and not ideally

  12. I thought the future of fiber optics was... by Karpe · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...wireless!! ;)

    1. Re:I thought the future of fiber optics was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit - I'm in the wrong job it seems. Didn't know that strain/temperature/pressure/acceleration.... sensors were included in the 802.11a/b/g specs.

  13. What the... by eddy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Another case of "When in doubt, use brute force"?

    Evolutionary search isn't "brute force", you id... At least not for meaningful definitions of 'brute force'

    Brute force would be starting at one end of design space and evaluating each design in turn.

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
    1. Re:What the... by JosKarith · · Score: 0

      Oh, evolutionary selection relies very heavily on brute force - just ask any species that's fallen behind.
      Oh wait, you can't. All the other species have brute forced them out of the environment...

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
  14. GA's are not brute force by jdrugo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ..as they don't search the state space exhaustively. Going through all possible combinations of parameters would be brute force, but in this case, as the parameters are real-valued, this is even impossible (if ignoring the possibility of quantisation)

    Evolutionary Algorithms provide informed search as they perform competition among the individuals (each representing one possible solution) in the population. Their performance is way above exhaustive search techniques (which _are_ brute force) but below classical search techniques. In this case, however, such classical techniques cannot be applied as the problem space is not well-defined.

  15. No, Taco, No by neoshroom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Another case of "When in doubt, use brute force"?"

    No, Taco, No.

    From the 'brute force' entry in Wikipedia:

    In computer science, Brute Force, sometimes called the Naive Method, is a term used to refer to the simplest, most intuitive, most spontaneous, and usually most inefficient methods of accomplishing a task.

    This is exactly what a genetic algorhthem is not. If you have a million numbers brute force would be to go from the first to the last in order. Using a genetic algorhythem provides a shortcut though Design Space wherein you need to try far fewer combinations in order to come to a successful result.

    C'mon Taco, of all people, you should know this!

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
    1. Re:No, Taco, No by shackma2 · · Score: 0
      C'mon Taco, of all people, you should know this!

      Anonymous Submitter said this, not Taco.

    2. Re:No, Taco, No by neoshroom · · Score: 1

      And who edited and posted it with the submitter's obviously erronous comment? ;)

      --
      Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
  16. An Australian Genetic algorithm? by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Funny

    With all the weirdo animals the Australian continent has produced I guess this program will produce some highly interesting results. I cant wait for the announcement that a pattern resembling a Duck Billed Platypus is ideal for streaming Digital TV.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:An Australian Genetic algorithm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People always sound rather ignorant when they call it a "duck billed platypus". Only children in australia refer to it like that...

    2. Re:An Australian Genetic algorithm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naahh, the algorithm was pretty straightforward in australia:
      Make everything poisonous, and if that fails, make even more so.

  17. Another case of "When in doubt, use brute force"?" by michaelepley · · Score: 1
    Certainly not.

    Genetic algoroithms are simply another form of optimization algorithm, just like Simulated annealing, Ant-Cology optimization, just to name a few. Each variety has its strengths and weaknesses for different search spaces and genetic algorithms have there place. These often have nature related names because nature is an excellent optimizer from which we draw inspiration.


    If you want to talk brute force, try an exhaustive search of complex high-dimension, continous, real valued parameter space. Get back to me when you are done.

  18. on brute force by MacJedi · · Score: 1

    Repeat after me: There is no general solution to the global optimization problem.

    --
    2^5
  19. ummm by skeletor935 · · Score: 0

    shouldn't you all be working

  20. research paper by phreakv6 · · Score: 1

    Here is the research paper published by Manos on the topic.

    --
    fifteen jugglers, five believers
  21. Danger!!!! by dfn5 · · Score: 1
    The computer program combines two patterns to create a third fibre 'offspring'

    We must kill it before it develops language skills!!

    --
    -- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
    1. Re:Danger!!!! by timza · · Score: 1

      I imagine - what if these 'offsprings' get growing for real?
      It's just a matter of time and technology. So a device will generate fiber optic cables and they'll spread all over the world, plugging into every device they meet in their way .. :D .. yeah, right...
      [sounds like a scenario for some crappy movie or smth]

    2. Re:Danger!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We must kill it before it develops language skills!!

      The Master would not approve. (Manos, The LANs of Fate, run away!)

  22. Re:Brute force breeding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    You may be trolling, but I'll point it out anyway: evolution doesn't have an end point. It is a path - a path with many branches and dead-ends - and not a destination. And I'm not being all metaphysical and hippy-ish about it.

  23. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  24. Re:Manos, the Fibre of Fate by Markzilla · · Score: 0

    The (hic) Master (hic) would not approve of this...

  25. Breeding!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Not breading.

    Somehow I don't think he's going to cover it with bread crumbs.

    1. Re:Breeding!!! by Artichoke · · Score: 1

      Nah, he meant trying to get results by feeding the fibres into a breadboard. As eny fule kno...

      --
      __
      Arse
  26. Re:Manos, the Fibre of Fate by DLWormwood · · Score: 1
    massively deformed WIFI access points

    ThE MaStEr DoEs NoT aPpRoVe Of WiReLeSs, OnLy FiBrE

    --
    Those who complain about affect & effect on /. should be disemvoweled
  27. Slow, haunting music plays... incessantly by unithom · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am... Torgo..; I .. polish the. .. fiber while the Master... is away... There is no way... out of.. here, the fiber will.. go dark ... soon, there is no way... out of .. here... etc, etc.

  28. Reminds me of Tyco by L3on · · Score: 1

    Seems yet again there is a better way to deliver data over fiber, which doesn't surprise me. Does anyone remember when Tyco Corp. (http://www.tyco.com/ - the same guys responsible for a nasty embezzlement scandle) used to string fiber across the oceans like mad. And then someone figured out that you could send 100x the amount of data across the same cables...

  29. Brute force? No way? by carldot67 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Genetic algorithms are computational shortcuts that are used to very quickly find minima in complex multiparameter functions.

    Suppose you wanted to find the lowest value of f(x)=sin(x) where x is from 0-360. (OK we all know its at x=270 but hear me out) - you can do it a couple of ways:

    1. calculate sin(x) for all 360 possible values of "x" or
    2. calculate sin(x) for (say) 20 values of "x".

    Statistics says approach 2 will give you a couple of promising results, for only 1/18th of the effort. Now "breed" another 20 from the 6 values of x for which sin(x) were lowest, say 190, 210, 212, 260, 278, 290. This "next generation" gives sin(x) values whiach are closer to zero. Take the best 6 again. After three generations you are *close* to finding the values for "x" that give you sin(x)=0.

    So systematic examination takes 360 tries and the genetic shortcut takes 60 tries - about 17% of the computational effort.

    Now imagine a function a bit more complex; some mad multivariate affair like the wave equation. Each variable becomes a "gene" in the above "breeding program". All the time we are looking for parents and offspring that *tend* towards the answer we are looking for. (We also chuck in some unrelated parents too, since inbreeding can be bad - a tip stolen from Monte Carlo techniques [which see]).
    The computational savings from GA, GP and MC techniques are potentially huge (as in orders of magnitude) so long as you dont care that:

    a) The answer is not 100% exact
    b) Some alternative minima are missed

    --
    I wish at was Friday, but I dont want to wish my life away. So I wish it was last Friday.
    1. Re:Brute force? No way? by saigon_from_europe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But only problem, just as parent said, is that

      b) Some alternative minima are missed

      A friend of mine got a job to work on genetic algorithms, in an academic institute. Being an engineer, he asked to be moved to another position 3 months after.

      His explanation was very short: in GA you look for problems and you try to prove that they could be solved by this method.

      Actually, all methods used in engineering were invented to solve some problem; not vice versa. Ok, maybe they not all of them, i canno say for sure since we learned about methods, not about their history. Most succesful methods moved from one area to another one, but basicaly it was problem before solution, not solution before problem.

      The interesting point is that this is second story about GA in only couple of days; there must be some conspiracy theory to explain this.

      --
      No sig today.
    2. Re:Brute force? No way? by Darth+Cider · · Score: 1

      Your comment was the best summary of the technique, Carldot67. This is offtopic, but please see my previous slashdot post, because someone should do this.

    3. Re:Brute force? No way? by carldot67 · · Score: 1

      The approach described by Darth_Cider has technical merit. There already exist screening technologies based on arrays of proteins, ligands, antibodies, biomimetic polymers and microfluidics platforms and it is easy to see how this might be extended into the field. Production of the raw materials on a grand scale is even quite cheap.

      The problems arise with tooling (complicated), instrumentation (expensive) and reagents (twitchy) needed to cleanly detect signals. Oh, and a degree in biochemistry for the user would help. These challenges will require investment and lots of it in order to go away. And right now the investment scene is not ready to roll without retaining a most Un-Open-Source level of control.

      All this said, such an approach is inevitable in the long run as biotech becomes more deskilled (everythings in kit form these days), key Patents fall off (eg Southern arrays - 2009?) and biotech searches for new approaches to the existing HTS dogma (which has arguably failed to deliver).

      As the cash barrier to entry falls, it is possible that some of the small players might even try this "field discovery" out (they then pass leads, after some validation to the big pharma - $1M per lead - with carried interest if it wins big).

      The biggest issue is one of politico-capitalistic will (Pharma and VC will want to lock the process into their discovery pipelines, and also the FDA will be looking for onerous QA in the field).

      Darth's suggestion is interesting and it will be interesting if future commercial and regulatory conditions permit it to go forward.

      I have myself in past lives proposed an "Open Source Drug Discovery" system that relied on a community contributing to a central ontologically based belief network. Again, the terms and conditions of researchers' contracts largely precludes such an approach. Again, the rush for riches denies us progress. Oh for another Tim Berners Lee with a molecular biology PhD!

      --
      I wish at was Friday, but I dont want to wish my life away. So I wish it was last Friday.
    4. Re:Brute force? No way? by ortholattice · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ...so long as you dont care that... b) Some alternative minima are missed

      The problem of local minima is often significant. A good analogy is real genetics - each species has evolved into a "local minima" for likelihood of extinction. If the wings on a given type of butterfly become slightly larger or smaller there will typically be a survivability penalty of some kind, and wing size has stabilized at the optimum for that species. But look at the difference in possible local minima: in one case it results in a whale, and in another it results in toenail fungus. Neither could survive if suddenly given some of the characteristics of the other. A beautiful orchid is a local minimum, and so is pond slime. Your genetic algorithm could decide that pond slime is the optimal product, and the difference can impact your ornamental plant business due to subjective things like beauty that can't be quantified.

    5. Re:Brute force? No way? by carldot67 · · Score: 1

      ortholattice of course has a point although I confess I got a bit lost with the worked example. GA and it's ilk are there to produce reasonable answers to otherwise computationally intractable problems. The approach is merely dangerous if the results are treated as gospel and not subjected to the same intellectual rigour as any other testable hypothesis.

      --
      I wish at was Friday, but I dont want to wish my life away. So I wish it was last Friday.
    6. Re:Brute force? No way? by Darth+Cider · · Score: 1

      Very well said, Carldot67. Thank you for the laser beam exposition of the issues. I read just today in a popular science article that 99% of Earth's micro-organisms have not been catalogued. You really get this idea, and I'm thankful for the resonance.

      Finding a single useful organism could have tremendous impact. Consider the cost of a lottery ticket and the odds of payoff. A microarray would look like a lottery ticket in size and shape and ought to cost slightly less than a dollar to manufacture. QED.

      It would be very interesting to learn how pharmaceutical companies conduct their own field research. "When you're on vacation, bring us back some dirt." I've read that some companies do exactly that.

      I've tried to explain to friends this concept of natural pharmacopoeia by saying, "Imagine a world without cinnamon." Invariably, they say they don't really care for cinnamon. Sheesh.

      Good to see your reply. Take it wherever it goes, openly and for good of all.

  30. massive fiber overcapacity already? by vijayiyer · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What is the purpose of this? Specialized interconnects? As far as I know, there is already massive overcapacity for telecom fiber networks.

  31. Genetic Algorithm + Hill climbing by G4from128k · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For exploring real-valued phase spaces, one solution is to combine a GA with a classical hill-climber. A hill-climber evaluates the local gradient (the partial derivatives of fitness with respect to the independent variables) and then makes a directed adjustment of the solution in the direction of better performance. Hillclimbers can reach optima in floating-point spaces very quickly, but tend to get stuck on local solutions.

    GAs are great for jumping out of local optima to find new realms of the solution space, but don't converge as quickly on the neighborhood optima. So the combination of a GA with more classical optimzation can work well.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Genetic Algorithm + Hill climbing by namidim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would argue that though GAs are better than simple hill climbing they are far from being "Great" at getting out of local optima. In fact, a lot of the theory surrounding GAs has to do with how to avoid exactly that since the basic GA of some mutation combined with splicing for reproduction tends to get stuck extremely easily being limited almost entirely to the values represented in the original population. Evolutionary algorithms might be a better choice to pair with hill climbers. Evolutionary algorithms use vector cross products and gausian probabalistic mutation as the main operations for reproduction and my uderstanding is that they tend to get much better coverage of the search space than GAs. For instance a big problem in standargd GAs is that you get stuck with various combinations of whatever values were in the original population (only mutation can put in new values and mutated "genes" tend not to stick around for very long in the later stages of the evolution) . In EAs where most of the reproduction is based on probabalistic calculations however, you get a whole gradiant of values that change all the time.

  32. GA good or bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GA and GP is inherently random, just pray your population doesn't become stagnent. Or you will need to repeat your experiment, all the time thinking, WTF!!!, brute force would have been faster ;P

  33. AI by skeletor935 · · Score: 0

    I dropped out of AI class after about 3 months because my teacher was a complete moron. It's too bad, I liked it but she made class and the topic about as painful and agonizing as trying to nail jello to your own ass. I didn't make it to genetic algorithms

    1. Re:AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for sharing how you and your former professor are dumbasses.

  34. Re:What's with the French? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    "Many words are similar in English and French as both languages evolved along side each other "

    Actually it has more to do with the Normans invading england in 1066 and dumping literally thousands of french words into the english language. English is an unusual language in that its actually a true amalgamation of a number of languages (anglosaxon , norman french and old norse with a few others thrown into the mix too). Generally (linguists don't flame me ok) it has germanic verbs & nouns + norman french nouns and scandinavian grammar (eg verb comes before object in sentence)

  35. re: "When in doubt, use brute force"? by plexxer · · Score: 1

    I would not be surprised if this is the way our own brain works when figuring out problems. Raw ideas form and mutate and are tested - sometimes we are conscious of it, many times not. It's the way species evolve - it only makes sense that the same logic is built within our own brain.

    Of couse, I am also a big proponent of the idea that evolution gave humans the greatest gift of all - the ability to self-evolve ourselves.

    --
    The government's moral compass is controlled by GPS.
    In times of crises, they alter it to suit their needs.
  36. Using GAs isn't that simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, people can apply GA's to any sort of problem. You know why ? Because GA's are soooo nice :-) *but*, you have to (a) design your fitness function and (b) design your representation and (c) design your recombination and mutation operators.

    __That's__ what takes ages.

  37. this guy is way too confident by kjba · · Score: 3, Insightful
    No other algorithm can come up with a design for optical fibres that are cheap to make and transmit data at a high rate, Manos said.

    How can anyone make a claim like this? Just the fact that one can't think of any other algorithm doesn't mean no such algorithm exists. For many problems that can be solved by genetic algorithms, other (problem-specific) algorithms exists (or may exists) that are way more efficient. The nice thing about genetic algorithms is that it is a standard tool that often works, not that it is an exceptionally smart way of doing things.

    1. Re:this guy is way too confident by geeber · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, actually lot's of algorithms exist for designing optical fiber, and they do it efficiently and very accurately. I use a number of in house proprietary programs for designing optical fibers all the time. And I can tell you we don't waste time messing around with GA's

      So why don't you hear a great deal about such algorithms? Well, for one, they don't have cool names like "Genetic Algorithms". Also, they are highly prized and considered extremely valuable intellectual property for the companies that actually make optical fiber. We are not going to publicise all the details the most fundamental design tools of our business.

      GA's are not the future of optical fiber. They are, however, excellent for generating academic papers, which in turn are highly useful for getting tenure.

    2. Re:this guy is way too confident by evangellydonut · · Score: 2, Funny

      it's just a matter of time before academic papers are generated by GAs, and whoever think of it first will have a endless supply of funding at the expense of other guys :-P

    3. Re:this guy is way too confident by mankei · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you are being too critical to their research. Granted I don't like the idea of using genetic algorithm for optics research either, but what they design are not conventional fibers, but holey fibers, (a.k.a. photonic crystal fibers or microstructure fibers) which can have varying hole patterns and sizes in the cladding, making fiber design much more complicated. These holey fibers are unique because they can have much higher effective nonlinearity (smaller core size) and unique dispersion properties (e.g. anomalous group-velocity dispersion at 800nm), and I believe there is no existing technique or program that tells you how to design those hole patterns to get desired dispersion properties.

  38. What's so great about meat? by szquirrel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This process is repeated thousands of times with the 10 designs best suited for the particular application chosen to 'breed' again." Another case of "When in doubt, use brute force"?

    More like another case of computer science being fascinated by meat.

    Remember when neural networks were the next big thing? Everyone was applying them to everything, whether or not it made sense to solve the problem that way. It's neural! Just like our brains! Our brains are smart, they will make our computers smart!

    I'm sure genetic algorithms will eke out a useful place in the computer science toolkit, I just doubt it will be as broad as the current fashion of applying them to everything from optical fiber to race cars to compilers.

    --
    Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
    1. Re:What's so great about meat? by BigTom · · Score: 1

      Actually the combination of Genetic Algorithms (or at least evolutionary computing) and Neural Networks make a really powerful combination.

  39. Re:Manos, the Fibre of Fate by Hubert_Shrump · · Score: 1

    just remember that if you're installing this fiber, it takes 4hrs a foot, and there's annoying clank-a-jank music playing the whole time.

    --
    Keep your packets off my GNU/Girlfriend!
  40. SWAG by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 0

    Structured Wild Ass Guessing.
    At least they are using a computer to do it.

    --
    I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
  41. It had to be said. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Manos... the hands of bitrate.

  42. Genetic Animation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the coolest things I ever saw that used Genetic Algorithms was the Pixar lamp character they use before movies. The model was composed of a simulated mechanical system and they used GAs to teach it how to jump realisitically (and not fall over).

  43. Genetic Algorithms are so cool by shaka999 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've written my open GA for doing circuit optimizations and it works very well. The thing I love most is that they are so simple to write. There are things you can do to speed up convergence but the basic algorithm is very straight forward.

    The difficult thing is how to score individual trials. I don't know how many times I've checked things after a overnight run and found that my results aren't what I expected. Pretty much everytime this comes down to how I've scored a trial. Just remember you get what you ask for.

    For a circuit example, suppose I ask for a certain power comsumption and speed but I overstate the speed goal. Because I'm so far off the speed goal the power will largely be ignored. There are easy ways to tweak this but the point is...again...you get what you ask for.

    --
    One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
  44. Re:Pretty cool stuff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    However:

    America > World

  45. Re:What's with the French? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    They conquered england. They didn't exactly make much headway in wales until the next century and never made it far into scotland.

  46. I'm waiting... by cliffa3 · · Score: 1

    on the next generation of fiber so i can upgrade my christmas tree.

  47. no one beats me by techefnet · · Score: 0

    i got a roll of fibre on the back of my car! gbit whereever i go, anybody wants to have a ride or what?

  48. Where's Crow? Tom Servo? by Not_Wiggins · · Score: 1


    Steven Manos... I guess the "fate" of fibre is in his "hands." ;)

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
  49. On GAs and randomized data by anocelot · · Score: 1

    There are a few posts here to the affect that "optimization is limited completely by the original machines." When I was doing GAs, we would select the top few performers, and:

    1. "Breed" them with each other.
    2. "Breed" them with totally random data.

    No matter how well your select your original machines, there's practically always room for improvement (otherwise, why use a GA in the first place?) Unless you are REALLY good at selecting your first few machines, the random data really is powerfull. Case in point, after a few million itterations, a GA designed to play Othello randomly generated the top performer. It was completely different than any other machine but capable of consistantly beating (granted by a very small margin) both other machines and people.

    --
    This tagline brought to you by 1500 monkeys in just under 17 years.
  50. Re:What's with the French? by xirtam_work · · Score: 1

    Troll? Figures huh, i shouldn't have been baited by the troll parent.

    I thought i was being 'informative'.

  51. Sex for Software ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, at least it makes A.I. sound like fun...

    Darwin would be well pleased!

  52. Meat made that computer and this forum... by xtal · · Score: 1

    ..so maybe plain 'ol meat isn't so bad.

    While you're demonstrating ignorance, there is a lot of very promising work going into applications of neural networks to control systems and the broader field of AI in general. The problem with neural networks is that you need large numbers of processors to do some of the more complicated nets in anything approaching real time. Your brain has several billion little processors massively interconnected.

    Up until very recently with the advent of large scale FPGAs, this has not been practical.

    --
    ..don't panic
  53. 20 tbps should be good enough for anyone by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 1
    While I usually subscribe to the "more is better" school of thought, I'm also wondering what they're optimizing for. It seems like single mode fiber should be good enough for just about anything - it has a theoretical capacity of many terabits per second, with a useable range of about 60 miles. The price of cable is usually dominated by the protective covering they put around it, which is in turn dominated by the price of the backhoe to install it, so I don't think cost is much of an issue.

    The article vaguely implied that maybe flexibility and durability was the issue. It also mentioned puting a pattern of little holes in the fiber. Does anyone know what those are for?

    -jim

  54. In defense of the author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe he meant it was greedy.

  55. Identically simialar (except for the differences) by Col+Bat+Guano · · Score: 1
    The computer program combines two patterns to create a third fibre 'offspring', which Manos described as "similar but a bit different"

    ...as compared to the "similar but identical" results normally achieved?

  56. Brute force? by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1
    Another case of "When in doubt, use brute force"?

    No. Brute force would be making a list of all possible designs, removing the ones which did not fit the requirements, and sorting by price. This method explores only a small subset of all possible designs - while it won't find the theoretical best possible design, it'll find one good enough, and it'll do it in a timespan shorter than the age of the universe.
  57. Fiber Optics? by acidrain69 · · Score: 1

    I like mine round, long, thin, and to the curb.

    --
    -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
  58. "Manos" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember, folks...

    "Manos"... the Hands of Fate.