Quality and Diversity in Evolutionary Modular Robotics

In Evolutionary Robotics a population of solutions is evolved to optimize robots that solve a given task. However, in traditional Evolutionary Algorithms, the population of solutions tends to converge to local optima when the problem is complex or the search space is large, a problem known as premature convergence. Quality Diversity algorithms try to overcome premature convergence by introducing additional measures that reward solutions for being different while not necessarily performing better. In this paper we compare a single objective Evolutionary Algorithm with two diversity promoting search algorithms; a Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm and MAP-Elites a Quality Diversity algorithm, for the difficult problem of evolving control and morphology in modular robotics. We compare their ability to produce high performing solutions, in addition to analyze the evolved morphological diversity. The results show that all three search algorithms are capable of evolving high performing individuals. However, the Quality Diversity algorithm is better adept at filling all niches with high-performing solutions. This confirms that Quality Diversity algorithms are well suited for evolving modular robots and can be an important means of generating repertoires of high performing solutions that can be exploited both at design- and runtime.

[1]  A. E. Eiben,et al.  Introduction to Evolutionary Computing , 2003, Natural Computing Series.

[2]  Jordan B. Pollack,et al.  TITLE : Generative Representations for the Automated Design of Modular Physical Robots , 2003 .

[3]  Gregory S. Chirikjian,et al.  Modular Self-Reconfigurable Robot Systems , 2007 .

[4]  Karl Sims,et al.  Evolving 3D Morphology and Behavior by Competition , 1994, Artificial Life.

[5]  Yiannis Demiris,et al.  Quality and Diversity Optimization: A Unifying Modular Framework , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[6]  Antoine Cully,et al.  Robots that can adapt like animals , 2014, Nature.

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

[8]  Jean-Baptiste Mouret,et al.  Illuminating search spaces by mapping elites , 2015, ArXiv.

[9]  Sebastian Risi,et al.  Evolution and Morphogenesis of Simulated Modular Robots: A Comparison Between a Direct and Generative Encoding , 2017, EvoApplications.

[10]  Stéphane Doncieux,et al.  Overcoming the bootstrap problem in evolutionary robotics using behavioral diversity , 2009, 2009 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[11]  A.J. Ijspeert,et al.  Online optimization of modular robot locomotion , 2005, IEEE International Conference Mechatronics and Automation, 2005.

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

[13]  A. E. Eiben,et al.  Search Space Analysis of Evolvable Robot Morphologies , 2018, EvoApplications.

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

[15]  Jean-Baptiste Mouret,et al.  Are quality diversity algorithms better at generating stepping stones than objective-based search? , 2019, GECCO.

[16]  A. E. Eiben,et al.  HyperNEAT for Locomotion Control in Modular Robots , 2010, ICES.

[17]  K. Stoy The deformatron robot: a biologically inspired homogeneous modular robot , 2006, Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006..

[18]  Andrés Faiña,et al.  EDHMoR: Evolutionary designer of heterogeneous modular robots , 2013, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell..

[19]  Jordan B. Pollack,et al.  Automatic design and manufacture of robotic lifeforms , 2000, Nature.

[20]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Quality Diversity: A New Frontier for Evolutionary Computation , 2016, Front. Robot. AI.

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

[22]  Stéphane Doncieux,et al.  Encouraging Behavioral Diversity in Evolutionary Robotics: An Empirical Study , 2012, Evolutionary Computation.

[23]  Antoine Cully,et al.  How do Different Encodings Influence the Performance of the MAP-Elites Algorithm? , 2016, GECCO.

[24]  S. Holm A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure , 1979 .

[25]  Mark Yim,et al.  Structure synthesis on-the-fly in a modular robot , 2011, 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[26]  Andrés Faiña,et al.  The EMeRGE modular robot, an open platform for quick testing of evolved robot morphologies , 2017, GECCO.

[27]  M. E. Johnson,et al.  A Comparative Study of Tests for Homogeneity of Variances, with Applications to the Outer Continental Shelf Bidding Data , 1981 .

[28]  Kyrre Glette,et al.  Real-World Reproduction of Evolved Robot Morphologies: Automated Categorization and Evaluation , 2015, EvoApplications.

[29]  Pinhas Ben-Tzvi,et al.  Modular and reconfigurable mobile robotics , 2012, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[30]  Kyrre Glette,et al.  Dynamic mutation in MAP-Elites for robotic repertoire generation , 2018, ALIFE.

[31]  Anthony Kulis,et al.  Bio-Inspired Artificial Intelligence: Theories, Methods, and Technologies , 2009, Scalable Comput. Pract. Exp..

[32]  Kyrre Glette,et al.  On Restricting Real-Valued Genotypes in Evolutionary Algorithms , 2020, ArXiv.

[33]  Gregory S. Chirikjian,et al.  Modular Self-Reconfigurable Robot Systems [Grand Challenges of Robotics] , 2007, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

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

[35]  Jean-Baptiste Mouret,et al.  Data-efficient exploration, optimization, and modeling of diverse designs through surrogate-assisted illumination , 2017, GECCO.

[36]  Kyrre Glette,et al.  Some distance measures for morphological diversification in generative evolutionary robotics , 2014, GECCO.