Evolution of Cooperation in Evolutionary Robotics: the Tradeoff between Evolvability and Efficiency

In this paper, we investigate the benefits and drawbacks of different approaches for solving a cooperative foraging task with two robots. We compare a classical clonal approach with an additional approach which favors the evolution of heterogeneous behaviors according to two defining criteria: the evolvability of the cooperative solution and the efficiency of the coordination behaviors evolved. Our results reveal a tradeoff between evolvability and efficiency: the clonal approach evolves cooperation with a higher probability than a non-clonal approach, but heterogeneous behaviors evolved with the non-clonal approach systematically show better fitness scores. We then propose to overcome this tradeoff and improve on both of these criteria for each approach. To this end, we investigate the use of incremental evolution to transfer coordination behaviors evolved in a simpler task. We show that this leads to a significant increase in evolvability for the non-clonal approach, while the clonal approach does not benefit from any gain in terms of efficiency.

[1]  A. E. Eiben,et al.  Evolutionary Robotics: What, Why, and Where to , 2015, Front. Robot. AI.

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

[3]  David S. Touretzky,et al.  Shaping robot behavior using principles from instrumental conditioning , 1997, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[4]  Sean Luke,et al.  Cooperative Multi-Agent Learning: The State of the Art , 2005, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[5]  Stephane Doncieux Transfer learning for direct policy search: A reward shaping approach , 2013, 2013 IEEE Third Joint International Conference on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics (ICDL).

[6]  Marco Colombetti,et al.  Incremental Robot Shaping , 1998, Connect. Sci..

[7]  Dario Floreano,et al.  Genetic Team Composition and Level of Selection in the Evolution of Cooperation , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[8]  Gillian M. Hayes,et al.  Robot Shaping --- Principles, Methods and Architectures , 1996 .

[9]  Robert van Rooij,et al.  The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure , 2007, Stud Logica.

[10]  D. Floreano,et al.  Evolving Cooperation: From Biology to Engineering , 2014 .

[11]  Inman Harvey,et al.  Seeing the light: artificial evolution, real vision , 1994 .

[12]  Marco Colombetti,et al.  Robot Shaping: Developing Autonomous Agents Through Learning , 1994, Artif. Intell..

[13]  D. Floreano,et al.  A Quantitative Test of Hamilton's Rule for the Evolution of Altruism , 2011, PLoS biology.

[14]  Jean-Marc Montanier,et al.  Surviving the tragedy of commons: Emergence of altruism in a population of evolving autonomous agents , 2011, ECAL.

[15]  Stefano Nolfi,et al.  Competitive co-evolutionary robotics: from theory to practice , 1998 .

[16]  Josh C. Bongard Behavior Chaining - Incremental Behavior Integration for Evolutionary Robotics , 2008, ALIFE.

[17]  Dario Floreano,et al.  Evolving Team Compositions by Agent Swapping , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[18]  Stéphane Doncieux,et al.  Beyond black-box optimization: a review of selective pressures for evolutionary robotics , 2014, Evol. Intell..

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

[20]  Stefano Nolfi,et al.  God Save the Red Queen! Competition in Co-Evolutionary Robotics , 1997 .

[21]  Marco Dorigo,et al.  From Solitary to Collective Behaviours: Decision Making and Cooperation , 2007, ECAL.

[22]  R. Connor The Benefits of Mutualism: A Conceptual Framework , 1995 .