Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the evolution of homogeneous two-robot teams: clonal versus aclonal approaches

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study compares two different evolutionary approaches (clonal and aclonal) to the design of homogeneous two-robot teams (i.e. teams of morphologically identical agents with identical controllers) in a task that requires the agents to specialise to different roles. The two approaches differ mainly in the way teams are formed during evolution. In the clonal approach, a team is formed from a single genotype within one population of genotypes. In the aclonal approach, a team is formed from multiple genotypes within one population of genotypes. In both cases, the goal is the synthesis of individual generalist controllers capable of integrating role execution and role allocation mechanisms for a team of homogeneous robots. Our results diverge from those illustrated in a similar comparative study, which supports the superiority of the aclonal versus the clonal approach. We question this result and its theoretical underpinning, and we bring new empirical evidence showing that the clonal outperforms the aclonal approach in generating homogeneous teams required to dynamically specialise for the benefit of the team. The results of our study suggest that task-specific elements influence the evolutionary dynamics more than the genetic relatedness of the team members. We conclude that the appropriateness of the clonal approach for role allocation scenarios is mainly determined by the specificity of the collective task, including the evaluation function, rather than by the way in which the solutions are evaluated during evolution.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In [7], the roles are a posteriori identified based on the characteristics of the best evolved strategies. They are not part of the definition of the task, and their evolution is not imposed by the design of the evaluation function.

  2. See also http://users.aber.ac.uk/elt7/suppPagn/TA2013/suppMat.html for further methodological details, pictures, and videos.

References

  1. Camazine S, Deneubourg JL, Franks N, Sneyd J, Theraulaz G, Bonabeau E (2001) Self-organization in biological systems. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  2. Nitschke G, Schut M, Eiben A (2007) Emergent specialization in biologically inspired collective behavior systems. Intelligent complex adaptive systems. IGI, New York, pp 100–140

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dorigo M, Floreano D, Gambardella L, Mondada F, Nolfi S, Baaboura T, Birattari M, Bonani M, Brambilla M, Brutschy A, Burnier D, Campo A, Christensen A, Decugniere A, Di Caro G, Ducatelle F, Ferrante E, Forster A, Gonzales J, Guzzi J, Longchamp V, Magnenat S, Mathews N, Montes de Oca M, OGrady R, Pinciroli C, Pini G, Retornaz P, Roberts J, Sperati V, Stirling T, Stranieri A, Stutzle T, Trianni V, Tuci E, Turgut A, Vaussard F, (2013) Swarmanoid: a novel concept for the study of heterogeneous robotic swarms. Robot Autom Mag IEEE 20(4):60–71

    Google Scholar 

  4. Quinn M, Smith L, Mayley G, Husbands P (2003) Evolving controllers for a homogeneous system of physical robots: structured cooperation with minimal sensors. Philos Trans R Soc A 361:2321–2343

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Ampatzis C, Tuci E, Trianni V, Christensen A, Dorigo M (2009) Evolving self-assembly in autonomous homogeneous robots: experiments with two physical robots. Artif Life 15(4):465–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Trianni V, Nolfi S, Dorigo M (2008) Evolution, self-organisation, and swarm robotics. In: Blum C, Merkle D (eds) Swarm Intelligence. Introductions and Applications, Natural Computing Series. Springer, Berlin, pp 163–192

    Google Scholar 

  7. Quinn M (2001) A comparison of approaches to the evolution of homogeneous multi/robot teams. Proc Int Conf Evol Comput 1:128–135

    Google Scholar 

  8. Quinn M (2004) The evolutionary design of controllers for minimally-equipped homogeneous multi-robot systems. PhD thesis, University of Sussex, School of Informatics

  9. Trianni V, Nolfi S (2011) Engineering the evolution of self-organizing behaviors in swarm robotics: a case study. Artif Life 17(3):183–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Panait L, Luke S (2005) Cooperative multi-agent learning: the state of the art. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 11:387–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nitschke G, Schut M, Eiben A (2009) Collective neuro-evolution for evolving specialised sensor resolutions in multi-rover task. Evol Intel 3(1):13–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Luke S, Spector L (1996) Evolving teamwork and coordination with genetic programming. In: Genetic programming 1996: proceedings of the 1st annual conference. MIT Press, Cambridge pp 150–156

  13. Bongard J (2000) The legion system: a novel approach to evolving heterogeneity for collective problem solving. In: Poli R (ed) Genetic programming: proceedings of EuroGP-2000. Springer, LNCS, pp 16–28

  14. Ijspeert A, Martinoli A, Billard A, Gambardella L (2001) Collaboration through the exploitation of local interactions in autonomous collective robotics: the stick pulling experiment. Auton Robots 11(2):149–171

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Waibel M, Floreano D, Magnenat S, Keller L (2006) Division of labour and colony efficiency in social insects: effect of interactions between genetic architecture, colony kin structure and rate of perturbation. Proc R Soc B 273:1815–1823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Waibel M, Floreano D, Keller L (2011) A quantitative test of Hamilton’s rule for the evolution of altruism. PLoS Biol 9(5):1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Floreano D, Mitri S, Keller L (2007) Evolutionary conditions for the emergence of communication in robots. Curr Biol 17:514–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Waibel M, Keller L, Floreano D (2009) Genetic team composition and level of selection in the evolution of cooperation. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 13(3):648–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Potter M, LAMeeden, schultz A (2001) Heterogeneity in the coevolved behvaviors of mobile robots: the emergence of specialists. In: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, pp 1337–1343

  20. Nolfi S (2000) EvoRob 1.1 User Manual. Institute of Psychology, National Research Council (CNR), available at http://gral.ip.rm.cnr.it/evorobot/simulator.html

  21. Dudek G, Jenkin M (2000) Computational principles of mobile robotics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Beer RD, Gallagher JC (1992) Evolving dynamic neural networks for adaptive behavior. Adaptive Behav 1(1):91–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Tuci E (2009) An investigation of the evolutionary origin of reciprocal communication using simulated autonomous agents. Biol Cybern 101(3):183–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jakobi N (1997) Evolutionary robotics and the radical envelope of noise hypothesis. Adaptive Behav 6:325–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Page R (1997) The evolution of insects society. Endeavour 21(3):114–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Oldroyd B, Fewell J (2007) Genetic diversity promotes homeostasis in insect colonies. Trends Ecol Evol 22(8):408–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gordon D (1996) The organisation of work in social insects. Nature 380:121–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

V. Trianni acknowledges funding from the \( H ^{2}\)SWARM research project (European Science Foundation).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Aberystwyth University, Llandinam Building, Aberystwyth, SY23 3RD, UK

    Elio Tuci

  2. ISTC-CNR, Via San Martino della Battaglia 44, 00185, Rome, Italy

    Vito Trianni

Authors
  1. Elio Tuci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vito Trianni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elio Tuci.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tuci, E., Trianni, V. On the evolution of homogeneous two-robot teams: clonal versus aclonal approaches. Neural Comput & Applic 25, 1063–1076 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-014-1594-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-014-1594-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation