Advertisement

Structural Properties of Shape-Spaces

  • Werner Dilger
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4163)

Abstract

General properties of distance functions and of affinity functions are discussed in this paper. Reasons are given why a distance function for (n based shape-spaces should be a metric. Several distance functions that are used in shape-spaces are examined and it is shown that not all of them are metrics. It is shown which impact the type of the distance function has on the shape-space, in particular on the form of recognition or affinity regions in the shape-space. Affinity functions should be defined in such a way that they determine an affinity region with positive values inside that region and zero or negative values outside. The form of an affinity function depends on the type of the underlying distance function. This is demonstrated with several examples.

Keywords

Shape-space distance function metric affinity function affinity region 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bersini, H.: Self-assertion versus self-recognition: A tribute to Francisco Varela. In: Proceedings of ICARIS 2002, Canterbury (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Boer, R.J.: Information processing in immune systems: Clonal selection versus idiotypic network models. In: Cell to Cell Signalling: From Experiments to Theoretical Models, pp. 285–302. Academic Press, London (1989)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Boer, R.J., Perelson, A.S.: Size and connectivity as emergent properties of a developing immune network. J. of Theoretical Biology 149, 381–424 (1990)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Castro, L., Timmis, J.: Artificial Immune Systems: A new Computational Intelligence Approach. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Detours, V., Bersini, H., Stewart, J., Varela, F.: Development of an idiotypic network in shape-space. J. of Theoretical Biology 170 (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dilger, W., Strangfeld, S.: Properties of the Bersini experiment on self-assertion. In: Proceedings of GECCO 2006 (to appear, 2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hart, E., Ross, P.: Studies on the implications of shape-space models for idiotypic networks. In: Nicosia, G., Cutello, V., Bentley, P.J., Timmis, J. (eds.) ICARIS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3239, pp. 413–426. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hart, E.: Not all balls are round: An investigation of alternative recognition-region shapes. In: Jacob, C., Pilat, M.L., Bentley, P.J., Timmis, J.I. (eds.) ICARIS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3627, pp. 29–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hunt, J.E., Cooke, D.E., Holstein, H.: Case memory and retrieval based on the immune system. In: Aamodt, A., Veloso, M.M. (eds.) ICCBR 1995. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1010, pp. 205–216. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McCarty, G.: Topology. In: An Introduction with Application to Topological Groups. McGraw-Hill, New York (1967)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Percus, J.K., Percus, O.E., Perelson, A.S.: Predicting the size of the T-cell receptor and antibody combining region from consideration of efficient self-nonself discrimination. Proceedings of the Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 90, 1691–1695 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Perelson, A., Oster, G.F.: Theoretical studies of clonal selection: Minimal antibody repertoire size and reliability of self-nonself discrimination in the immune system. J. of Theoretical Biology 81, 645–670 (1979)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rogers, D.J., Tanimoto, T.T.: A computer program for classifying plants. Science 132, 1115–1118 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Werner Dilger
    • 1
  1. 1.Chemnitz University of TechnologyChemnitzGermany

Personalised recommendations