Crossing the reality gap in evolutionary robotics by promoting transferable controllers

The reality gap, that often makes controllers evolved in simulation inefficient once transferred onto the real system, remains a critical issue in Evolutionary Robotics (ER); it prevents ER application to real-world problems. We hypothesize that this gap mainly stems from a conflict between the efficiency of the solutions in simulation and their transferability from simulation to reality: best solutions in simulation often rely on bad simulated phenomena (e.g. the most dynamic ones). This hypothesis leads to a multi-objective formulation of ER in which two main objectives are optimized via a Pareto-based Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm: (1) the fitness and (2) the transferability. To evaluate this second objective, a simulation-to-reality disparity value is approximated for each controller. The proposed method is applied to the evolution of walking controllers for a real 8-DOF quadrupedal robot. It successfully finds efficient and well-transferable controllers with only a few experiments in reality.

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

[2]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Once More Unto the Breach1: Co-evolving a robot and its simulator , 2004 .

[3]  C. Coello,et al.  CONSTRAINT-HANDLING USING AN EVOLUTIONARY MULTIOBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUE , 2000 .

[4]  Stéphane Doncieux,et al.  Automatic system identification based on coevolution of models and tests , 2009, 2009 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[5]  Dario Floreano,et al.  Evolution of Plastic Control Networks , 2001, Auton. Robots.

[6]  R. K. Ursem Multi-objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms , 2009 .

[7]  A. Boeing,et al.  Evaluation of real-time physics simulations systems , 2007 .

[8]  Jordan B. Pollack,et al.  Evolutionary Techniques in Physical Robotics , 2000, ICES.

[9]  Lyle N. Long,et al.  A Small Semi-Autonomous Rotary-Wing Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) , 2005 .

[10]  Francesco Mondada,et al.  Evolutionary neurocontrollers for autonomous mobile robots , 1998, Neural Networks.

[11]  Stéphane Doncieux,et al.  Sferesv2: Evolvin' in the multi-core world , 2010, IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

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

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

[14]  Paul J. Layzell,et al.  Explorations in design space: unconventional electronics design through artificial evolution , 1999, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[15]  Nick Jacobi,et al.  Running Across the Reality Gap: Octopod Locomotion Evolved in a Minimal Simulation , 1998, EvoRobot.

[16]  Phil Husbands,et al.  Once More Unto the Breach: Co-evolving a robot and its simulator , 2004 .

[17]  Stéphane Doncieux,et al.  Using behavioral exploration objectives to solve deceptive problems in neuro-evolution , 2009, GECCO.

[18]  Javier Ruiz-del-Solar,et al.  Combining Simulation and Reality in Evolutionary Robotics , 2007, J. Intell. Robotic Syst..

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

[20]  Thomas Bräunl,et al.  Evaluation of real-time physics simulation systems , 2007, GRAPHITE '07.

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

[22]  Cédric Hartland,et al.  Evolutionary Robotics, Anticipation and the Reality Gap , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics.

[23]  Frédéric Plumet,et al.  Decoupled control of posture and trajectory of the hybrid wheel-legged robot hylos , 2004, IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA '04. 2004.