Advertisement

Emergent Intelligent Properties of Evolving and Adapting Snake-like Robot’s Locomotion

  • Ivan Tanev
Part of the Advances in Soft Computing book series (AINSC, volume 29)

Abstract

Inspired by the efficient method of locomotion of the rattlesnake Crotalus cerastes, the objective of this work is to investigate the emergent properties of the automatically designed through genetic programming (GP) fastest possible (sidewinding), robust and adaptive locomotion gaits of simulated snake-like robot (Snakebot). Considering the notion of “emergent intelligence” as the ability of Snakebot to achieve its goals (of moving fast) without the need to be explicitly taught about how to do so, we present the empirical results on the emergence of sidewinding locomotion as fastest locomotion of the Snakebot. The emergent properties of evolved robust sidewinding gaits featuring desired velocity characteristics of Snakebot in challenging environment are discussed. The ability of Snakebot to adapt to partial damage by gradually improving its velocity characteristics, and the emergent properties of obtained adaptive gaits are elaborated. Concluding on the practical implications of the analogy between the emergent properties of the robust and the adaptive locomotion gaits, this work could be viewed as a step towards building real Snakebots, which are able to perform robustly in difficult environment.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Angeline P. J. (1994) Genetic Programming and Emergent Intelligence. In Kinnear, K.E. Jr., editor, Advances in Genetic Programming, MIT Press, 75–98Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Dowling K. (1997) Limbless locomotion: Learning to Crawl with a Snake Robot, doctoral dissertation. Tech. report CMU-RI-TR-97-48, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon UniversityGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Goldberg D. E. (1989) Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning, Addision-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Hirose S. (1993) Biologically Inspired Robots: Snake-like Locomotors and Manipulators. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Ito K and Gofuku A. (2003) Emergence Of Adaptive Behaviors By Redundant Robots,-Robustness To Changes Environment And Failures, Proc. of IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Canberra, Australia, 8–12 December 2003, 2572–2579Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Kamio S, Mitsuhashi H., and Iba H. (2003) Integration of Genetic Programming and Reinforcement Learning for Real Robots. Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computations Conference (GECCO 2003), 470–482.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Jacobi N. (1998) Minimal Simulations for Evolutionary Robotics. Ph.D. thesis, School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, Sussex UniversityGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Koza J. R. (1992) Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection, MIT Press, Cambridge, MAzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Koza J. R. (1994) Genetic Programming 2: Automatic Discovery of Reusable Programs, MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Koza J. R., Keane M. A., Yu J., Bennett III F. H., Mydlowec W. (2000) Automatic Creation of Human-Competitive Programs and Controllers by Means of Genetic Programming. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, Vol.1 No.1–2, 121–164zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Mahdavi S., Bentley P. J. (2003) Evolving Motion of Robots with Muscles. In Proc. of EvoROB2003, the 2nd European Workshop on Evolutionary Robotics, EuroGP-2003, 655–664Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Morowitz H. J. (2002) The Emergence of Everything: How the World Became Complex. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Meeden L., Kumar D. (1998) Trends in Evolutionary Robotics. Soft Computing for Intelligent Robotic Systems, edited by L.C. Jain and T. Fukuda, Physica-Verlag, New York, NY, 215–233Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Pelikan M., Goldberg D. E. and Cantú-Paz E. (1998) Linkage Problem, Distribution Estimation, and Bayesian Networks, IlliGAL Report No. 98013: Illinois Genetic Algorithm Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, ILGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Smith R. (2001) Open Dynamics Engine, http://q12.org/ode/Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Takamura S., Hornby G. S., Yamamoto T., Yokono J., and Fujita M. (2000) Evolution of Dynamic Gaits for a Robot. IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics, 192–193Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Tanev I. T. (2004) DOM/XML-Based Portable Genetic Representation of Morphology, Behavior and Communication Abilities of Evolvable Agents. Artificial Life and Robotics, an International Journal, Springer-Verlag, Vol.8, Number 1, 52–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Tanev I. T. (2005) Incorporating Learning Probabilistic Context-sensitive Grammar in Genetic Programming for Efficient Evolution and Adaptation of Snakebot. Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Genetic Programming (EuroGP-2005), 30 March–1 April 2005, Lausanne, Switzerland (to appear)Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Worst R.(1998) Robotic Snakes. Proceedings of the Third German Workshop on Artificial Life, Verlag Harri Deutsch, 113–126Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan Tanev
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information Systems DesignDoshisha UniversityKyotanabe, KyotoJapan
  2. 2.ATR Network Informatics LaboratoriesKeihanna Science CityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations