Real-world evolution adapts robot morphology and control to hardware limitations

For robots to handle the numerous factors that can affect them in the real world, they must adapt to changes and unexpected events. Evolutionary robotics tries to solve some of these issues by automatically optimizing a robot for a specific environment. Most of the research in this field, however, uses simplified representations of the robotic system in software simulations. The large gap between performance in simulation and the real world makes it challenging to transfer the resulting robots to the real world. In this paper, we apply real world multi-objective evolutionary optimization to optimize both control and morphology of a four-legged mammal-inspired robot. We change the supply voltage of the system, reducing the available torque and speed of all joints, and study how this affects both the fitness, as well as the morphology and control of the solutions. In addition to demonstrating that this real-world evolutionary scheme for morphology and control is indeed feasible with relatively few evaluations, we show that evolution under the different hardware limitations results in comparable performance for low and moderate speeds, and that the search achieves this by adapting both the control and the morphology of the robot.

[1]  Mario A. Góngora,et al.  Robustness analysis of evolutionary controller tuning using real systems , 2009, 2009 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[2]  Kyrre Glette,et al.  Overcoming Initial Convergence in Multi-objective Evolution of Robot Control and Morphology Using a Two-Phase Approach , 2017, EvoApplications.

[3]  Anders Lyhne Christensen,et al.  Open Issues in Evolutionary Robotics , 2016, Evolutionary Computation.

[4]  J. Estremera,et al.  Quadrupedal Locomotion: An Introduction to the Control of Four-legged Robots , 2006 .

[5]  Stéphane Doncieux,et al.  Sferesv2: Evolvin' in the multi-core world , 2010, IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

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

[7]  Kyrre Glette,et al.  A hox gene inspired generative approach to evolving robot morphology , 2013, GECCO '13.

[8]  Jean-Baptiste Mouret,et al.  20 years of reality gap: a few thoughts about simulators in evolutionary robotics , 2017, GECCO.

[9]  Kyrre Glette,et al.  Multi-objective evolution of fast and stable gaits on a physical quadruped robotic platform , 2016, 2016 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI).

[10]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Evolved and Designed Self-Reproducing Modular Robotics , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[11]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[12]  Stefano Nolfi,et al.  How to Evolve Autonomous Robots: Different Approaches in Evolutionary Robotics , 1994 .

[13]  Karl Sims,et al.  Evolving 3d morphology and behavior by competition , 1994 .

[14]  John Hallam,et al.  A hybrid GP/GA approach for co-evolving controllers and robot bodies to achieve fitness-specified tasks , 1996, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[15]  A. E. Eiben,et al.  Evolutionary Robotics: What, Why, and Where to , 2015, Front. Robot. AI.

[16]  Hervé Luga,et al.  A New Step for Artificial Creatures , 2007, 2007 IEEE Symposium on Artificial Life.

[17]  Hod Lipson,et al.  On the Difficulty of Co-Optimizing Morphology and Control in Evolved Virtual Creatures , 2016, ALIFE.

[18]  Josh Bongard,et al.  Morphological change in machines accelerates the evolution of robust behavior , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  Jordan B. Pollack,et al.  Evolution of generative design systems for modular physical robots , 2001, Proceedings 2001 ICRA. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.01CH37164).

[20]  Yuval Tassa,et al.  Simulation tools for model-based robotics: Comparison of Bullet, Havok, MuJoCo, ODE and PhysX , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[21]  Vincent Padois,et al.  Evolutionary Robotics: Exploring New Horizons , 2011 .

[22]  P. Eggenberger,et al.  Evolving the morphology of a compound eye on a robot , 1999, 1999 Third European Workshop on Advanced Mobile Robots (Eurobot'99). Proceedings (Cat. No.99EX355).

[23]  Kyrre Glette,et al.  Self-Modifying Morphology Experiments with DyRET: Dynamic Robot for Embodied Testing , 2019, 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[24]  Maciej Komosinski,et al.  The World of Framsticks: Simulation, Evolution, Interaction , 2000, Virtual Worlds.

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

[26]  Inman Harvey,et al.  Noise and the Reality Gap: The Use of Simulation in Evolutionary Robotics , 1995, ECAL.

[27]  Jordan B. Pollack,et al.  Embodied Evolution: Distributing an evolutionary algorithm in a population of robots , 2002, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[28]  A. E. Eiben,et al.  Grand Challenges for Evolutionary Robotics , 2014, Front. Robot. AI.

[29]  Fumiya Iida,et al.  Evolutionary Developmental Robotics: Improving Morphology and Control of Physical Robots , 2017, Artificial Life.

[30]  Morgan Quigley,et al.  ROS: an open-source Robot Operating System , 2009, ICRA 2009.

[31]  D. Floreano,et al.  Synthesis of autonomous robots through evolution , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[32]  Stéphane Doncieux,et al.  The Transferability Approach: Crossing the Reality Gap in Evolutionary Robotics , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[33]  A. E. Eiben,et al.  Real-World Evolution of Robot Morphologies: A Proof of Concept , 2017, Artificial Life.