Skip to main content

Running across the reality gap: Octopod locomotion evolved in a minimal simulation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1468))

Abstract

This paper describes experiments in which neural network control architectures were evolved in minimal simulation for an octopod robot. The robot is around 30cm long and has 4 infra red sensors that point ahead and to the side, various bumpers and whiskers, and ten ambient light sensors positioned strategically around the body. Each of the robot's eight legs is controlled by two servo motors, one for movement in the horizontal plane, and one for movement in the vertical plane, which means that the robots motors have a total of sixteen degrees of freedom. The aim of the experiments was to evolve neural network control architectures that would allow the robot to wander around its environment avoiding objects using its infra-red sensors and backing away from objects that it hits with its bumpers. This is a hard behaviour to evolve when one considers that in order to achieve any sort of coherent movement the controller has to control not just one or two motors in a coordinated fashion but sixteen. Moreover it is an extremely difficult set-up to simulate using traditional techniques since the physical outcome of sixteen motor movements is rarely predictable in all but the simplest cases. The evolution of this behaviour in a minimal simulation, with perfect transference to reality, therefore, provides essential evidence that complex motor behaviours can be evolved in simulations built according to the theory and methodology of minimal simulations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. R.D. Beer and J.C. Gallagher. Evolving dynamic neural networks for adaptive behavior. Adaptive Behavior, 1:91–122, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  2. R. Brooks. Artificial life and real robots. In F. J. Varela and P. Bourgine, editors, Toward a Practice of Autonomous Systems. Proceedings of the first European Conference on Artificial Life, pages 3–10, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1992. MIT Press/Bradford Books.

    Google Scholar 

  3. F. Gruau. Automatic definition of modular neural networks. Adaptive Behavior, 3(2):151–184, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  4. F. Gruau. Cellular encoding for interative evolutionary robotics. In P. Husbands and I. Harvey, editors, Fourth European Conference on Artificial Life, pages 368–377. MIT Press/Bradford Books, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  5. I. Harvey and P. Husbands. Evolutionary robotics. In Proceedings of IEE Colloquium on ‘Genetic Algorithms for Control Systems Engineering', London 8 May 1992, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  6. P. Husbands and I. Harvey. Evolution versus design: Controlling autonomous robots. In Integrating Perception, Planning and Action, Proceedings of 3rd Annual Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Simulation and Planning, pages 139–146. IEEE Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  7. N. Jakobi. Half-baked, ad-hoc and noisy: Minimal simulations for evolutionary robotics. In P. Husbands and I. Harvey, editors, Fourth European Conference on Artificial Life, pages 348–357. MIT Press/Bradford Books, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  8. N. Jakobi. Minimal Simulations for Evolutionary Robotics. PhD thesis, University of Sussex, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  9. N. Jakobi. Evolutionary robotics and the radical envelope of noise hypothesis. Adaptive Behavior, 6(2), 1998, pages =.

    Google Scholar 

  10. N. Jakobi, P. Husbands, and I. Harvey. Noise and the reality gap: The use of simulation in evolutionary robotics. In F. Moran, A. Moreno, J.J. Merelo, and P. Chacon, editors, Advances in Artificial Life: Proc. 3rd European Conference on Artificial Life, pages 704–720. Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 929, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. Kodjabachian and J.-A. Meyer. Evolution and development of neural networks controlling locomotion, gradient following and obstacle avoidance in artificial insects. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, page (in press), 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  12. M.J. Mataric and D. Cliff. Challenges in evolving controllers for physical robots. Robot and Autonomous Systems, 19(1):67–83, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  13. O. Miglino, H.H. Lurid, and S. Nolfi. Evolving mobile robots in simulated and real environments. Artifical Life, 2(4), 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  14. S. Nolfi, D. Floreano, O. Miglino, and F. Mondada. How to evolve autonomous robots: Different approaches in evolutionary robotics. In R. Brooks and P. Maes, editors, Artificial Life IV, pages 190–197. MIT Press/Bradford Books, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  15. A. Thompson.Evolving electronic robot controllers that exploit hardware resources. In F. Moran, A. Moreno, J.J. Merelo, and P. Chacon, editors, Advances in Artificial Life: Proc. 3rd European Conference on Artificial Life, pages 640–656. Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 929, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Philip Husbands Jean-Arcady Meyer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Jakobi, N. (1998). Running across the reality gap: Octopod locomotion evolved in a minimal simulation. In: Husbands, P., Meyer, JA. (eds) Evolutionary Robotics. EvoRobots 1998. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1468. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-64957-3_63

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-64957-3_63

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-64957-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49902-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics