Evolving Multi Rover Systems in Dynamic and Noisy Environments

Summary. In this chapter, we address how to evolve control strategies for a collective: a set of entities that collectively strives to maximize a global evaluation function that rates the performance of the full system. Addressing such problems by directly applying a global evolutionary algorithm to a population of collectives is unworkable because the search space is prohibitively large. Instead, we focus on evolving control policies for each member of the collective, where each member is trying to maximize the fitness of its own population. The main difficulty with this approach is creating fitness evaluation functions for the members of the collective that induce the collective to achieve high performance with respect to the system level goal. To overcome this difficulty, we derive member evaluation functions that are both aligned with the global evaluation function (ensuring that members trying to achieve high fitness results in a collective with high fitness) and sensitive to the fitness of each member (a member’s fitness depends more on its own actions than on actions of other members). In a difficult rover coordination problem in dynamic and noisy environments, we show how to construct evaluation functions that lead to good collective behavior. The control policy evolved using aligned and member-sensitive evaluations outperforms global evaluation methods by up to a factor of four. In addition we show that the collective continues to perform well in the presence of high noise levels and when the environment is highly dynamic. More notably, in the presence of a larger number of rovers or rovers with noisy sensors, the improvements due to the proposed method become significantly more pronounced.

[1]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Active Guidance for a Finless Rocket Using Neuroevolution , 2003, GECCO.

[2]  M. Matari Coordination and Learning in Multi-Robot Systems , 1998 .

[3]  Arvin Agah,et al.  A genetic algorithm-based controller for decentralized multi-agent robotic systems , 1996, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[4]  Kagan Tumer,et al.  Collective Intelligence and Braess' Paradox , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[5]  Frank Hoffmann,et al.  Evolutionary Design of a Helicopter Autopilot , 1999 .

[6]  Steven Dubowsky,et al.  A Genetic Algorithm Based Navigation and Planning Methodology for Planetary Robotic Exploration , 1997 .

[7]  Kagan Tumer,et al.  Optimal Payoff Functions for Members of Collectives , 2001, Adv. Complex Syst..

[8]  Luca Maria Gambardella,et al.  Ant colony system: a cooperative learning approach to the traveling salesman problem , 1997, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[9]  K. Tumer,et al.  Overcoming communication restrictions in collectives , 2004, 2004 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37541).

[10]  Francesco Mondada,et al.  Understanding collective aggregation mechanisms: From probabilistic modelling to experiments with real robots , 1999, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[11]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Efficient Reinforcement Learning Through Evolving Neural Network Topologies , 2002, GECCO.

[12]  L. Darrell Whitley,et al.  Cellular Encoding Applied to Neurocontrol , 1995, ICGA.

[13]  Tucker Balch,et al.  Behavioral diversity as multiagent cooperation , 1999, Optics East.

[14]  Kagan Tumer,et al.  Efficient Evaluation Functions for Multi-rover Systems , 2004, GECCO.

[15]  Steven Dubowsky,et al.  Genetic Planning Method and its Application to Planetary Exploration , 2002 .

[16]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Online Interactive Neuro-evolution , 2000, Neural Processing Letters.

[17]  Francesco Mondada,et al.  Automatic creation of an autonomous agent: genetic evolution of a neural-network driven robot , 1994 .

[18]  Stefano Nolfi,et al.  Evolving Mobile Robots Able to Display Collective Behaviors , 2003, Artificial Life.

[19]  Maja J. Mataric,et al.  New Directions: Robotics: Coordination and Learning in Multirobot Systems , 1998, IEEE Intell. Syst..