Advertisement

Soft Computing

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 269–279 | Cite as

Multiple Objective Genetic Algorithms for Path-planning Optimization in Autonomous Mobile Robots

  • Oscar Castillo
  • Leonardo Trujillo
  • Patricia Melin
Focus

Abstract

This paper describes the use of a genetic algorithm (GA) for the problem of offline point-to-point autonomous mobile robot path planning. The problem consists of generating “valid” paths or trajectories, for an Holonomic Robot to use to move from a starting position to a destination across a flat map of a terrain, represented by a two-dimensional grid, with obstacles and dangerous ground that the Robot must evade. This means that the GA optimizes possible paths based on two criteria: length and difficulty. First, we decided to use a conventional GA to evaluate its ability to solve this problem (using only one criteria for optimization). Due to the fact that we also wanted to optimize paths under two criteria or objectives, then we extended the conventional GA to implement the ideas of Pareto optimality, making it a multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA). We describe useful performance measures and simulation results of the conventional GA and of the MOGA that show that both types of GAs are effective tools for solving the point-to-point path-planning problem.

Keywords

Multiple objective optimization Genetic algorithms Autonomous robots Path planning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ali AD, Babu MSN, Varghese K (2002) Offline path planning of cooperative manipulators using co-evolutionary genetic algorithm. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on automation and robotics in construction, 19th (ISARC), pp 415–124Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Choset H, La Civita ML, Park JC (1999) Path planning between two points for a robot experiencing localization error in known and unknown environments. In: Proceedings of the conference on field and service robotics (FSR’99), Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cobb HG (1990) An investigation into the use of hypermutation as an adaptive operator in genetic algorithms having continuous, time-dependent nonstationary environments. Technical Report AIC-90-001, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Farritor S, Dubowsky S (2002) A genetic planning method and its application to planetary exploration. ASME J Dyn Syst Meas Control 124(4):698–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fonseca CM, Fleming CJ (1993) Genetic algorithms for multiobjective optimization: formulation, discussion and generalization. In: 5th international conference genetic algorithms, pp 416–423Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim BN, Kwon OS, Kim KJ, Lee EH, Hong SH (1999) A study on path planning for mobile robot based on fuzzy logic controller. In: Proceedings of IEEE TENCON’99, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Man KF, Tang KS, Kwong S (1999) Genetic algorithms, 1st ed. London SpringerGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oliveira GMB, Bortot JC, De Oliveira PPB (2002) Multiobjective evolutionary search for one-dimensional cellular automata in the density classification task. In: Proceedings of artificial life VIII. Cambridge, MIT Press, pp 202–206Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Planas RM, Fuertes JM, Martinez AB (2002) Qualitative approach for mobile robot path planning based on potential field methods. In: 16th international workshop on qualitative reasoning (QR’02), pp 1–7Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sauter JA, Matthews R, Parunak, HVD, Brueckner S (2002) Evolving adaptive pheromone path planning mechanisms. In: 1st international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, Bologna, Italy, pp 434–440Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schaffer JD (1985) Multiple objective optimization with vector evaluated genetic algorithms. Genetic algorithms and their applications. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on genetic algorithms, pp 93–100Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spandl H (1992) Lernverfahren zur Unterstützung der Routenplanung fur eine Mobilen Roboter. Dissertation, Universität Karlsruhe, auch VDI-Forsch-Heft Reihe 10 Nr. 212, Düsseldorf, Germany, VDI-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Srinivas M, Deb K (1994) Multiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms. Evol Comput 2(3):221–248Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sugihara K (1997) A case study on tuning of genetic algorithms by using performance evaluation based on experimental design. Technical Report ICS-TR-97-01, Deptartment of Information and Computer Sciences, University of Hawaii at ManoaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sugihara K (1997) Measures for performance evaluation of genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 3rd joint conference on information sciences, vol I, Research Triangle Park, NC, pp 172–175Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sugihara K (1999) Genetic algorithms for adaptive planning of path and trajectory of a mobile robot in 2d terrains. IEICE Trans Inf Syst E82-D:309–313Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xiao J, Michalewicz Z (2000) An evolutionary computation to robot planning and navigation. In: Hirota K, Fukuda T (eds) Soft computing in mechatronics. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, New york, pp 117–128Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zitzler E, Thiele L (1999) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3(4):257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oscar Castillo
    • 1
  • Leonardo Trujillo
    • 1
  • Patricia Melin
    • 1
  1. 1.Deptartment of Computer ScienceTijuana Institute of TechnologyTijuanaMexico

Personalised recommendations