Competitive co-evolutionary robotics: from theory to practice

It is argued that competitive co-evolution is a viable methodology for developing truly autonomous and intelligent machines capable of setting their own goals in order to face new and continuously changing challenges. The paper starts giving an introduction to the dynamics of competitive co-evolutionary systems and reviews their relevance from a computational perspective. The method is then applied to two mobile robots, a predator and a prey, which quickly and autonomously develop efficient chase and evasion strategies. The results are then explained and put in a long-term framework resorting to a visualization of the Red Queen effect on the fitness landscape. Finally, comparative data on different selection criteria are used to indicate that co-evolution does not optimize "intuitive" objective criteria.

[1]  A. J. Lotka.  Elements of Physical Biology. , 1925, Nature.

[2]  N. Rashevsky,et al.  Mathematical biology , 1961, Connecticut medicine.

[3]  L. V. Valen,et al.  A new evolutionary law , 1973 .

[4]  J. Krebs,et al.  Arms races between and within species , 1979, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[5]  S. Gould,et al.  The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme , 1979, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[6]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[7]  W. Daniel Hillis,et al.  Co-evolving parasites improve simulated evolution as an optimization procedure , 1990 .

[8]  Jean-Arcady Meyer,et al.  Evolution and Co Evolution of Computer Programs to Control Independently Acting Agents , 1991 .

[9]  E. Renshaw.  Modelling biological populations in space and time: Spatial predator–prey systems , 1991 .

[10]  Peter J. Angeline,et al.  Competitive Environments Evolve Better Solutions for Complex Tasks , 1993, ICGA.

[11]  John R. Koza,et al.  Genetic programming - on the programming of computers by means of natural selection , 1993, Complex adaptive systems.

[12]  Wirt Atmar,et al.  Notes on the simulation of evolution , 1994, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[13]  Dave Cliff,et al.  Protean behavior in dynamic games: arguments for the co-evolution of pursuit-evasion tactics , 1994 .

[14]  Karl Sims,et al.  Evolving 3d morphology and behavior by competition , 1994 .

[15]  Craig W. Reynolds.  Competition, Coevolution and the Game of Tag , 1994 .

[16]  Stefano Nolfi,et al.  Evolving mobile robots in simulated and real environments , 1995 .

[17]  Dave Cliff,et al.  Tracking the Red Queen: Measurements of Adaptive Progress in Co-Evolutionary Simulations , 1995, ECAL.

[18]  Francesco Mondada,et al.  Evolution of homing navigation in a real mobile robot , 1996, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B.

[19]  Pattie Maes,et al.  Co-evolution of Pursuit and Evasion II: Simulation Methods and Results , 1996 .

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

[21]  Ecublens oreano.  Ago Ergo Sum , 1997 .

[22]  Richard K. Belew,et al.  New Methods for Competitive Coevolution , 1997, Evolutionary Computation.

[23]  Inman Harvey.  Cognition is Not Computation; Evolution is Not Optimisation , 1997, ICANN.

[24]  D. Floreano,et al.  Co-evolving predator and prey robots : Do ‘ arms races ’ ar ise in ar tificial evolution ? , 1998 .

[25]  Francesco Mondada,et al.  Hardware Solutions for Evolutionary Robotics , 1998 .

[26]  D. Floreano,et al.  Adaptive Behavior in Competing Co-Evolving Species , 2000 .