MAP-Elites Enables Powerful Stepping Stones and Diversity for Modular Robotics

In modular robotics, modules can be reconfigured to change the morphology of the robot, making it able to adapt for specific tasks. However, optimizing both the body and control is a difficult challenge due to the intricate relationship between fine-tuning control and morphological changes that can invalidate such optimizations. To solve this challenge we compare three different Evolutionary Algorithms on their capacity to optimize morphologies in modular robotics. We compare two objective-based search algorithms, with MAP-Elites. To understand the benefit of diversity we transition the evolved populations into two difficult environments to see if diversity can have an impact on solving complex environments. In addition, we analyse the genealogical ancestry to shed light on the notion of stepping stones as key to enable high performance. The results show that MAP-Elites is capable of evolving the highest performing solutions in addition to generating the largest morphological diversity. For the transition between environments the results show that MAP-Elites is better at regaining performance by promoting morphological diversity. With the analysis of genealogical ancestry we show that MAP-Elites produces more diverse and higher performing stepping stones than the other objective-based search algorithms. Transitioning the populations to more difficult environments show the utility of morphological diversity, while the analysis of stepping stones show a strong correlation between diversity of ancestry and maximum performance on the locomotion task. The paper shows the advantage of promoting diversity for solving a locomotion task in different environments for modular robotics. By showing that the quality and diversity of stepping stones in Evolutionary Algorithms is an important factor for overall performance we have opened up a new area of analysis and results.

[1]  Erwin Coumans,et al.  Bullet physics simulation , 2015, SIGGRAPH Courses.

[2]  Wojciech Zaremba,et al.  OpenAI Gym , 2016, ArXiv.

[3]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Scalable co-optimization of morphology and control in embodied machines , 2017, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[4]  Daniel Marbach,et al.  Co-evolution of Configuration and Control for Homogenous Modular Robots , 2004 .

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

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

[7]  Stéphane Doncieux,et al.  New Horizons in Evolutionary Robotics: Extended Contributions from the 2009 EvoDeRob Workshop , 2011 .

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

[9]  Andrés Faiña,et al.  Automated Reconfiguration of Modular Robots Using Robot Manipulators , 2018, 2018 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI).

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

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

[12]  Gregory Hornby,et al.  ALPS: the age-layered population structure for reducing the problem of premature convergence , 2006, GECCO.

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

[14]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Picbreeder: A Case Study in Collaborative Evolutionary Exploration of Design Space , 2011, Evolutionary Computation.

[15]  H. P. de Vladar,et al.  Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned: The Myth of the Objective , 2016, Leonardo.

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

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

[18]  A. E. Eiben,et al.  Lamarckian Evolution of Simulated Modular Robots , 2019, Front. Robot. AI.

[19]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Dynamic Simulation of Soft Heterogeneous Objects , 2012, ArXiv.

[20]  Tobias Friedrich,et al.  Genetic and Evolutionary Computation , 2015, Theoretical Computer Science.

[21]  Daniele Gravina,et al.  Blending notions of diversity for MAP-elites , 2019, GECCO.

[22]  Jean-Baptiste Mouret,et al.  Evolving the Behavior of Machines: From Micro to Macroevolution , 2020, iScience.

[23]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned , 2015, Springer International Publishing.

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

[25]  Kasper Stoy,et al.  Self-Reconfigurable Robots: An Introduction , 2010 .

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

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

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

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

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

[32]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Genetic and Evolutionary Computation , 2006, Intelligenza Artificiale.

[33]  Jean-Baptiste Mouret Novelty-Based Multiobjectivization , 2011 .

[34]  Julian Togelius,et al.  Covariance matrix adaptation for the rapid illumination of behavior space , 2020, GECCO.

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

[36]  H. B. Mann,et al.  On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other , 1947 .

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

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

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

[40]  Kyrre Glette,et al.  Quality and Diversity in Evolutionary Modular Robotics , 2020, 2020 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI).

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

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

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

[44]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Three Dimensional Stochastic Reconfiguration of Modular Robots , 2005, Robotics: Science and Systems.

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

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

[47]  A. E. Eiben,et al.  The ARE Robot Fabricator: How to (Re)produce Robots that Can Evolve in the Real World , 2019, Artificial Life Conference Proceedings.

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

[49]  A. E. Eiben,et al.  Effects of Selection Preferences on Evolved Robot Morphologies and Behaviors , 2018 .

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

[51]  Daniele Gravina,et al.  Fusing novelty and surprise for evolving robot morphologies , 2018, GECCO.

[52]  F. Iida,et al.  Morphological Evolution of Physical Robots through Model-Free Phenotype Development , 2015, PloS one.

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

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

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

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

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

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