Neural Computing and Applications

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 1063–1076 | Cite as

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

  • Elio TuciEmail author
  • Vito Trianni
Original Article


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.


Evolutionary robotics Homogeneous and heterogeneous teams Role allocation 



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


  1. 1.
    Camazine S, Deneubourg JL, Franks N, Sneyd J, Theraulaz G, Bonabeau E (2001) Self-organization in biological systems. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nitschke G, Schut M, Eiben A (2007) Emergent specialization in biologically inspired collective behavior systems. Intelligent complex adaptive systems. IGI, New York, pp 100–140Google Scholar
  3. 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):60–71Google Scholar
  4. 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 361:2321–2343MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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):465–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 163–192Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Quinn M (2001) A comparison of approaches to the evolution of homogeneous multi/robot teams. Proc Int Conf Evol Comput 1:128–135Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Quinn M (2004) The evolutionary design of controllers for minimally-equipped homogeneous multi-robot systems. PhD thesis, University of Sussex, School of InformaticsGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Trianni V, Nolfi S (2011) Engineering the evolution of self-organizing behaviors in swarm robotics: a case study. Artif Life 17(3):183–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Panait L, Luke S (2005) Cooperative multi-agent learning: the state of the art. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 11:387–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nitschke G, Schut M, Eiben A (2009) Collective neuro-evolution for evolving specialised sensor resolutions in multi-rover task. Evol Intel 3(1):13–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 150–156Google Scholar
  13. 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 16–28Google Scholar
  14. 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):149–171CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 273:1815–1823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Waibel M, Floreano D, Keller L (2011) A quantitative test of Hamilton’s rule for the evolution of altruism. PLoS Biol 9(5):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Floreano D, Mitri S, Keller L (2007) Evolutionary conditions for the emergence of communication in robots. Curr Biol 17:514–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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):648–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 1337–1343Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nolfi S (2000) EvoRob 1.1 User Manual. Institute of Psychology, National Research Council (CNR), available at
  21. 21.
    Dudek G, Jenkin M (2000) Computational principles of mobile robotics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Beer RD, Gallagher JC (1992) Evolving dynamic neural networks for adaptive behavior. Adaptive Behav 1(1):91–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, ReadingzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tuci E (2009) An investigation of the evolutionary origin of reciprocal communication using simulated autonomous agents. Biol Cybern 101(3):183–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jakobi N (1997) Evolutionary robotics and the radical envelope of noise hypothesis. Adaptive Behav 6:325–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Page R (1997) The evolution of insects society. Endeavour 21(3):114–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oldroyd B, Fewell J (2007) Genetic diversity promotes homeostasis in insect colonies. Trends Ecol Evol 22(8):408–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gordon D (1996) The organisation of work in social insects. Nature 380:121–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceAberystwyth UniversityAberystwythUK
  2. 2.ISTC-CNRRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations