Novelty Search for Soft Robotic Space Exploration

The use of soft robots in future space exploration is still a far-fetched idea, but an attractive one. Soft robots are inherently compliant mechanisms that are well suited for locomotion on rough terrain as often faced in extra-planetary environments. Depending on the particular application and requirements, the best shape (or body morphology) and locomotion strategy for such robots will vary substantially. Recent developments in soft robotics and evolutionary optimization showed the possibility to simultaneously evolve the morphology and locomotion strategy in simulated trials. The use of techniques such as generative encoding and neural evolution were key to these findings. In this paper, we improve further on this methodology by introducing the use of a novelty measure during the evolution process. We compare fitness search and novelty search in different gravity levels and we consistently find novelty-based search to perform as good as or better than a fitness--based search, while also delivering a greater variety of designs. We propose a combination of the two techniques using fitness-elitism in novelty search to obtain a further improvement. We then use our methodology to evolve the gait and morphology of soft robots at different gravity levels, finding a taxonomy of possible locomotion strategies that are analyzed in the context of space-exploration.

[1]  Michael E. Wall,et al.  Galib: a c++ library of genetic algorithm components , 1996 .

[2]  E. Papadopoulos,et al.  QUADRUPED OPTIMUM GAITS ANALYSIS FOR PLANETARY EXPLORATION , 2013 .

[3]  Ian D. Walker,et al.  Soft robotics: Biological inspiration, state of the art, and future research , 2008 .

[4]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Exploiting Open-Endedness to Solve Problems Through the Search for Novelty , 2008, ALIFE.

[5]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Evolving Neural Networks through Augmenting Topologies , 2002, Evolutionary Computation.

[6]  Karl Sims,et al.  Evolving virtual creatures , 1994, SIGGRAPH.

[7]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Unshackling evolution: evolving soft robots with multiple materials and a powerful generative encoding , 2013, GECCO '13.

[8]  Jean-Baptiste Mouret Novelty-Based Multiobjectivization , 2011 .

[9]  Charles E. Hughes,et al.  How novelty search escapes the deceptive trap of learning to learn , 2009, GECCO.

[10]  Pamela Elizabeth Clark,et al.  ALI (Autonomous Lunar Investigator): Revolutionary Approach to Exploring the Moon with Addressable Reconfigurable Technology , 2005 .

[11]  Richard Kolacinski,et al.  Low Cost Mars Surface Exploration: The Mars Tumbleweed , 2003 .

[12]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Automatic Design and Manufacture of Soft Robots , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[13]  M. Hildebrand Vertebrate Locomotion: An IntroductionHow does an animal's body move itself along? , 1989 .

[14]  Robert J. Wood,et al.  A Resilient, Untethered Soft Robot , 2014 .

[15]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Evolving a diversity of virtual creatures through novelty search and local competition , 2011, GECCO '11.

[16]  Tomi Ylikorpi,et al.  Biologically inspired solutions for robotic surface mobility , 2004 .

[17]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Compositional Pattern Producing Networks : A Novel Abstraction of Development , 2007 .

[18]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Abandoning Objectives: Evolution Through the Search for Novelty Alone , 2011, Evolutionary Computation.

[19]  Fumiya Iida,et al.  The challenges ahead for bio-inspired 'soft' robotics , 2012, CACM.

[20]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Dynamic Simulation of Soft Heterogeneous Objects , 2012, ArXiv.

[21]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Revising the evolutionary computation abstraction: minimal criteria novelty search , 2010, GECCO '10.