Material properties affect evolutions ability to exploit morphological computation in growing soft-bodied creatures

The concept of morphological computation holds that the body of an agent can, under certain circumstances, exploit the interaction with the environment to achieve useful behavior, potentially reducing the computational burden of the brain/controller. The conditions under which such phenomenon arises are, however, unclear. We hypothesize that morphological computation will be facilitated by body plans with appropriate geometric, material, and growth properties, while it will be hindered by other body plans in which one or more of these three properties is not well suited to the task. We test this by evolving the geometries and growth processes of soft robots, with either manually-set softer or stiffer material properties. Results support our hypothesis: we find that for the task investigated, evolved softer robots achieve better performances with simpler growth processes than evolved stiffer ones. We hold that the softer robots succeed because they are better able to exploit morphological computation. This four-way interaction among geometry, growth, material properties and morphological computation is but one example phenomenon that can be investigated using the system here introduced, that could enable future studies on the evolution and development of generic soft-bodied creatures.

[1]  J. Wolff The Law of Bone Remodelling , 1986, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[2]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  How Learning Can Guide Evolution , 1996, Complex Syst..

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

[4]  Jordan B. Pollack,et al.  Creating High-Level Components with a Generative Representation for Body-Brain Evolution , 2002, Artificial Life.

[5]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  A Taxonomy for Artificial Embryogeny , 2003, Artificial Life.

[6]  R. Pfeifer,et al.  Evolving Complete Agents using Artificial Ontogeny , 2003 .

[7]  Chandana Paul,et al.  Morphological computation: A basis for the analysis of morphology and control requirements , 2006, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[8]  Kenneth O. Stanley Exploiting Regularity Without Development , 2006, AAAI Fall Symposium: Developmental Systems.

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

[10]  T. Majmudar,et al.  Jamming transition in granular systems. , 2006, Physical review letters.

[11]  L. Munari How the body shapes the way we think — a new view of intelligence , 2009 .

[12]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Age-fitness pareto optimization , 2010, GECCO '10.

[13]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Evolving Amorphous Robots , 2010, ALIFE.

[14]  Filip Ilievski,et al.  Multigait soft robot , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[15]  Fumiya Iida,et al.  Robotic body extension based on Hot Melt Adhesives , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[16]  Helmut Hauser,et al.  The role of feedback in morphological computation with compliant bodies , 2012, Biological Cybernetics.

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

[18]  Helmut Hauser,et al.  Towards a theoretical foundation for morphological computation with compliant bodies , 2011, Biological Cybernetics.

[19]  Borys Wróbel,et al.  Co-evolution of morphology and control of soft-bodied multicellular animats , 2012, GECCO '12.

[20]  Josh C. Bongard,et al.  Evolutionary robotics , 2013, CACM.

[21]  Keyan Zahedi,et al.  Quantifying Morphological Computation , 2013, Entropy.

[22]  Helmut Hauser,et al.  A soft body as a reservoir: case studies in a dynamic model of octopus-inspired soft robotic arm , 2013, Front. Comput. Neurosci..

[23]  Hiroki Sayama,et al.  A review of morphogenetic engineering , 2013, Natural Computing.

[24]  Cecilia Laschi,et al.  Soft robotics: a bioinspired evolution in robotics. , 2013, Trends in biotechnology.

[25]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Unshackling evolution , 2014 .

[26]  R. Pfeifer,et al.  Opinions and Outlooks on Morphological Computation , 2014 .

[27]  Takaya Arita,et al.  Fine Grained Artificial Development for Body-Controller Coevolution of Soft-Bodied Animats , 2014, ALIFE.

[28]  Joshua Evan Auerbach,et al.  Environmental Influence on the Evolution of Morphological Complexity in Machines , 2014, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[29]  H. Lipson,et al.  Dynamic Simulation of Soft Multimaterial 3D-Printed Objects , 2014 .

[30]  John Rieffel,et al.  Growing and Evolving Soft Robots , 2014, Artificial Life.

[31]  Matteo Cianchetti,et al.  Evolving Optimal Swimming in Different Fluids: A Study Inspired by batoid Fishes , 2014, Living Machines.

[32]  Dario Izzo,et al.  Novelty Search for Soft Robotic Space Exploration , 2015, GECCO.

[33]  Cecilia Laschi,et al.  Dynamics of underwater legged locomotion: modeling and experiments on an octopus-inspired robot , 2015, Bioinspiration & biomimetics.

[34]  D. Rus,et al.  Design, fabrication and control of soft robots , 2015, Nature.

[35]  C. Laschi,et al.  Shaping the body to shape the behavior : a more active role of the morphology in the brain-body trade-off , 2015 .

[36]  Helmut Hauser,et al.  Evolutionary discovery of self-stabilized dynamic gaits for a soft underwater legged robot , 2015, 2015 International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR).

[37]  Sebastian Risi,et al.  Soft-Body Muscles for Evolved Virtual Creatures: The Next Step on a Bio-Mimetic Path to Meaningful Morphological Complexity , 2015, ECAL.

[38]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Evolving Soft Robots in Tight Spaces , 2015, GECCO.

[39]  Helmut Hauser,et al.  Novelty-Based Evolutionary Design of Morphing Underwater Robots , 2015, GECCO.