Trade-Offs in Exploiting Body Morphology for Control: from Simple Bodies and Model-Based Control to Complex Bodies with Model-Free Distributed Control Schemes

Tailoring the design of robot bodies for control purposes is implicitly performed by engineers, however, a methodology or set of tools is largely absent and optimization of morphology (shape, material properties of robot bodies, etc.) is lagging behind the development of controllers. This has become even more prominent with the advent of compliant, deformable or "soft" bodies. These carry substantial potential regarding their exploitation for control---sometimes referred to as "morphological computation" in the sense of offloading computation needed for control to the body. Here, we will argue in favor of a dynamical systems rather than computational perspective on the problem. Then, we will look at the pros and cons of simple vs. complex bodies, critically reviewing the attractive notion of "soft" bodies automatically taking over control tasks. We will address another key dimension of the design space---whether model-based control should be used and to what extent it is feasible to develop faithful models for different morphologies.

[1]  Tad McGeer,et al.  Passive Dynamic Walking , 1990, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[2]  Heinrich M. Jaeger,et al.  Universal robotic gripper based on the jamming of granular material , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  John Guckenheimer,et al.  The Dynamics of Legged Locomotion: Models, Analyses, and Challenges , 2006, SIAM Rev..

[4]  TrimmerBarry A Journal of Soft Robotics: Why Now? , 2014 .

[5]  Alin Albu-Schäffer,et al.  Soft robotics , 2008, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[6]  R. Pfeifer,et al.  Exploiting body dynamics for controlling a running quadruped robot , 2005, ICAR '05. Proceedings., 12th International Conference on Advanced Robotics, 2005..

[7]  Gerhard Neumann,et al.  Stochastic Optimal Control Methods for Investigating the Power of Morphological Computation , 2013, Artificial Life.

[8]  Paolo Dario,et al.  Soft Robot Arm Inspired by the Octopus , 2012, Adv. Robotics.

[9]  LipsonHod,et al.  Challenges and Opportunities for Design, Simulation, and Fabrication of Soft Robots , 2014 .

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

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

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

[13]  Helmut Hauser,et al.  Morphological Computation and Morphological Control: Steps Toward a Formal Theory and Applications , 2013, Artificial Life.

[14]  Alois Knoll,et al.  Toward Anthropomimetic Robotics: Development, Simulation, and Control of a Musculoskeletal Torso , 2013, Artificial Life.

[15]  Rolf Pfeifer,et al.  Understanding intelligence , 2020, Inequality by Design.

[16]  Jr. Raymond W. Gibbs Rolf Pfeifer and Josh Bongard, How the Body Shapes the Way We Think: A New View of Intelligence , 2007 .

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

[18]  Donald E. Kirk,et al.  Optimal control theory : an introduction , 1970 .

[19]  Yasuo Kuniyoshi,et al.  Mowgli: A Bipedal Jumping and Landing Robot with an Artificial Musculoskeletal System , 2007, Proceedings 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

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

[21]  Fumiya Iida,et al.  Soft Robotics: The Next Generation of Intelligent Machines , 2013, IJCAI.

[22]  M. Hoagland,et al.  Feedback Systems An Introduction for Scientists and Engineers SECOND EDITION , 2015 .

[23]  Masahiro Fujita,et al.  Evolving robust gaits with AIBO , 2000, Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium Conference. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Symposia Proceedings (Cat. No.00CH37065).

[24]  David Pekarek Variational Methods for Control and Design of Bipedal Robot Models , 2010 .

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

[26]  Gene F. Franklin,et al.  Feedback Control of Dynamic Systems , 1986 .

[27]  Jeffrey L. Krichmar,et al.  Evolutionary robotics: The biology, intelligence, and technology of self-organizing machines , 2001, Complex..

[28]  Benjamin Schrauwen,et al.  Automated Design of Complex Dynamic Systems , 2014, PloS one.

[29]  Juan Pablo Carbajal,et al.  Harnessing Nonlinearities: Behavior Generation from Natural Dynamics , 2012 .

[30]  Veljko Potkonjak,et al.  The Puller-Follower Control of Compliant and Noncompliant Antagonistic Tendon Drives in Robotic Systems , 2011 .

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

[32]  Benjamin Schrauwen,et al.  Locomotion Without a Brain: Physical Reservoir Computing in Tensegrity Structures , 2013, Artificial Life.

[33]  Rolf Pfeifer,et al.  How the body shapes the way we think - a new view on intelligence , 2006 .

[34]  J. Marsden,et al.  Trajectory Design Combining Invariant Manifolds with Discrete Mechanics and Optimal Control , 2012 .

[35]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Morphological communication: exploiting coupled dynamics in a complex mechanical structure to achieve locomotion , 2009, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[36]  Michael Yu Wang A Kinetoelastic Formulation of Compliant Mechanism Optimization , 2009 .