Memetic Computing

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 261–270 | Cite as

On embodied memetic evolution and the emergence of behavioural traditions in Robots

Regular Research Paper

Abstract

This paper describes ideas and initial experiments in embodied imitation using e-puck robots, developed as part of a project whose aim is to demonstrate the emergence of artificial culture in collective robot systems. Imitated behaviours (memes) will undergo variation because of the noise and heterogeneities of the robots and their sensors. Robots can select which memes to enact, and—because we have a multi-robot collective—memes are able to undergo multiple cycles of imitation, with inherited characteristics. We thus have the three evolutionary operators: variation, selection and inheritance, and—as we describe in this paper—experimental trials show that we are able to demonstrate embodied movement-meme evolution.

Keywords

Robot imitation Artificial culture Memetic evolution Collective robotics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alissandrakis A, Nehaniv C, Dautenhahn K (2002) Imitation with ALICE: learning to imitate corresponding actions across dissimilar embodiments. IEEE Trans Systems Man Cybern Part A Systems Humans 32(4): 482–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alissandrakis A, Nehaniv C, Dautenhahn K (2007) Solving the correspondence problem in robotic imitation across embodiments: synchrony, perception and culture in artefacts. In: Nehaniv C, Dautenhahn K (eds) Imitation and social learning in robots, humans and animals, Chap 12. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 249–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alissandrakis A, Nehaniv CL, Dautenhahn K (2003) Synchrony and perception in robotic imitation across embodiments. In: IEEE international symposium on computational intelligence in robotics and automation, pp 923–930Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Billard A, Hayes G (1999) DRAMA, a connectionist architecture for control and learning in autonomous robots. Adapt Behav 7(1): 35–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blackmore S (1999) The meme machine. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dautenhahn K (1995) Getting to know each other: artificial social intelligence for autonomous robots. Robot Auton Syst 16: 333–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dawkins R (1976) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Demiris Y, Hayes G (2002) Imitation as a dual-route process featuring predictive and learning components: a biologically-plausible computational model. In: Dautenhahn K, Nehaniv C (eds) Imitation in animals and artefacts, Chap 13. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Demiris Y, Khadhouri B (2005) Hierarchical, attentive, multiple models for execution and recognition (HAMMER). In: Proceedings of ICRA 2005Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gerkey BP, Vaughan RT, Stoy K, Howard A, Sukhatme GS, Matarić MJ (2001) Most valuable player: a robot device server for distributed control. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pp 1226–1231Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hayes G, Demiris J (1994) Robot controller using learning by imitation. In: Proceedings of 2nd international symposium on intelligent robotic systems, pp 198–204Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnson M, Demiris Y (2004) Abstraction in recognition to solve the correspodence problem for robot imitation. In: Proceedings of towards autonomous robotic systems (TAROS), pp 63–70Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu W, Winfield AFT (2011) Open-hardware e-puck Linux extension board for experimental swarm robotics research. Microprocess Microsyst 35(1): 60–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mataric MJ (2000) Getting humanoids to move and imitate. IEEE Intell Syst Appl 15(4): 18–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meuth R, Lim MH, Ong YS, Wunsch D (2009) A proposition on memes and meta-memes in computing for higher-order learning. Memetic Comput 1: 85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mondada F, Bonani M, Raemy X, Pugh J, Cianci C, Klaptocz A, Magnenat S, Zufferey JC, Floreano D, Martinoli A (2009) The e-puck, a robot designed for education in engineering. In: Proceedings of 9th conference on autonomous robot systems and competitions, pp 59–65Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nehaniv, C, Dautenhahn, K (eds) (2007) Imitation and social learning in robots, humans and animals. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nehaniv CL, Dautenhahn K (2002) The correspondence problem. In: Imitation in animals and artifacts, pp 41–61. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nehaniv, CL, Dautenhahn, K (eds) (2002) Imitation in animals and artefacts. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scassellati B (1999) Knowing what to imitate and knowing when you succeed. In: Proceedings of AISB’99 symposium on imitation in animals and artefacts, pp 105–113Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vaughan R (2008) Massively multi-robot simulation in stage. Swarm Intell 2(2–4): 189–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Winfield AFT, Erbas MD (2010) Screen recording showing animation of fig. 3. http://sites.google.com/site/artcultproject/mc-fig3
  23. 23.
    Winfield AFT, Erbas MD (2010) Screen recording showing animation of fig. 6. http://sites.google.com/site/artcultproject/mc-fig6
  24. 24.
    Winfield AFT, Griffiths F (2010) Towards the emergence of artificial culture in collective robot systems. In: Levi P, Kernbach S (eds) Symbiotic multi-robot organisms: reliability, adaptability, evolution. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bristol Robotics LaboratoryUniversity of the West of EnglandBristolUK

Personalised recommendations