Running Across the Reality Gap: Octopod Locomotion Evolved in a Minimal Simulation

This paper describes experiments in which neural network control architectures were evolved in minimal simulation for an octopod robot. The robot is around 30cm long and has 4 infra red sensors that point ahead and to the side, various bumpers and whiskers, and ten ambient light sensors positioned strategically around the body. Each of the robot's eight legs is controlled by two servo motors, one for movement in the horizontal plane, and one for movement in the vertical plane, which means that the robots motors have a total of sixteen degrees of freedom. The aim of the experiments was to evolve neural network control architectures that would allow the robot to wander around its environment avoiding objects using its infra-red sensors and backing away from objects that it hits with its bumpers. This is a hard behaviour to evolve when one considers that in order to achieve any sort of coherent movement the controller has to control not just one or two motors in a coordinated fashion but sixteen. Moreover it is an extremely difficult set-up to simulate using traditional techniques since the physical outcome of sixteen motor movements is rarely predictable in all but the simplest cases. The evolution of this behaviour in a minimal simulation, with perfect transference to reality, therefore, provides essential evidence that complex motor behaviours can be evolved in simulations built according to the theory and methodology of minimal simulations.

[1]  Inman Harvey,et al.  Evolution Versus Design: Controlling Autonomous Robots , 1992, Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of AI, Simulation, and Planning in High Autonomy Systems 'Integrating Perception, Planning and Action'..

[2]  Rodney A. Brooks,et al.  Artificial Life and Real Robots , 1992 .

[3]  Randall D. Beer,et al.  Evolving Dynamical Neural Networks for Adaptive Behavior , 1992, Adapt. Behav..

[4]  Nick Jakobi,et al.  Half-baked, Ad-hoc and Noisy: Minimal Simulations for Evolutionary Robotics , 1993 .

[5]  Piero Mussio,et al.  Toward a Practice of Autonomous Systems , 1994 .

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

[7]  Frédéric Gruau,et al.  Automatic Definition of Modular Neural Networks , 1994, Adapt. Behav..

[8]  Adrian Thompson,et al.  Evolving Electronic Robot Controller that Exploit Hardware Resources , 1995, ECAL.

[9]  Stefano Nolfi,et al.  Evolving Mobile Robots in Simulated and Real Environments , 1995, Artificial Life.

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

[11]  Dave Cliff,et al.  Challenges in evolving controllers for physical robots , 1996, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[12]  Nick Jakobi,et al.  Evolutionary Robotics and the Radical Envelope-of-Noise Hypothesis , 1997, Adapt. Behav..

[13]  Jean-Arcady Meyer,et al.  Evolution and development of neural controllers for locomotion, gradient-following, and obstacle-avoidance in artificial insects , 1998, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[14]  Phil Husbands,et al.  Evolutionary robotics , 2014, Evolutionary Intelligence.

[15]  Nick Jakobi,et al.  Minimal simulations for evolutionary robotics , 1998 .