Learning Complex Robot Behaviours by Evolutionary Computing with Task Decomposition

  • Wei-Po Lee
  • John Hallam
  • Henrik Hautop Lund
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1545)


Building robots can be a tough job because the designer has to predict the interactions between the robot and the environment as well as to deal with them. One solution to cope the difficulties in designing robots is to adopt learning methods. Evolution-based approaches are a special kind of machine learning method and during the last few years some researchers have shown the advantages of using this kind of approach to automate the design of robots. However, the tasks achieved so far are fairly simple. In this work, we analyse the difficulties of applying evolutionary approaches to learn complex behaviours for mobile robots. And, instead of evolving the controller as a whole, we propose to take the control architecture of a behavior-based system and to learn the separate behaviours and the arbitration by the use of an evolutionary approach. By using the technique of task decomposition, the job of defining fitness functions becomes more straightforward and the tasks become easier to achieve. To assess the performance of the developed approach, we have evolved a control system to achieve an application task of box-pushing as an example. Experimental results show the promise and efficiency of the presented approach.


Mobile Robot Real Robot Goal Position Evolutionary Computing Simulated Robot 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P. Agre, D. Chapman. Pengi: an Implementation of a Theory of Activity. In Proceedings of AAAI-87, pp. 268–272, Morgan Kaufmann, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. A. Brooks. A Robust Layered Control System for a Mobile Robot. IEEE Journal of Robots and Automation, vol RA-2(1), pp. 14–23, 1986.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Cliff, I. Harvey, and P. Husbands. Explorations in Evolutionary Robotics. Adaptive Behavior, 2(1):73–110, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Dorigo, M. Colombetti. Robot Shaping: Developing Autonomous Agents through Learning. Artificial Intelligence, 71(2):321–370, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. J. Firby. Task Networks for Controlling Continuous Processes. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on AI Planning Systems, pp. 49–54, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Floreano and F. Mondada. Automatic Creation of an Autonomous Agent: Genetic Evolution of a Neural-Network Driven Robot. In From Animals to Animats: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, pp. 421–430. MIT Press/Bradford Books, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Gat. Robot Navigation by Conditional Sequencing. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robitics and Automation, pp. 1293–1299, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W.-P. Lee, J. Hallam, H. H. Lund. A Hybrid GP/GA Approach for Co-evolving Controllers and Robot Bodies to Achieve Fitness-Specified Tasks. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    W.-P. Lee, J. Hallam, H. H. Lund. Applying GP to Evolve Behaviour Primitives and Arbitrators for Mobile Robots. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. H. Lund, E. V. Cuenca, J. Hallam. A Simple Real Time Mobile Robot Tracking System. Technical Paper No.41, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Mataric. Reward Functions for Accelerated Learning. In Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 181–189, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    O. Miglino, H. H. Lund, S. Nolfi. Evolving Mobile Robots in Simulated and Real Environments. Artificial Life, 2(4), 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Nolfi, and D. Parisi. Evolving Non-trivial Behaviors on Real Robots: An Autonomous Robot that Picks up Objects. In Proceedings of the Fourth Congress of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence. Spring-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Pfeifer, and Scheier. Sensory-Motor Coordination: the metaphor and beyond. In Robotics and Autonomous Systems, special issue in Practice and Future of Autonomous Agents, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. J. Rosenschein, L.P. Kaelbling. A Situated View of Representation and Control. Artificial Intelligence, vol 73, pp. 149–174, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. J. Rosenschein, L. P. Kaelbling. The Synthesis of Digital Machines with Provable Epistemic Properties. In Proceedings of Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, pp. 83–98. Morgan Kaufmann, 1986.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. Steels. Building Agents out of Autonomous Behavior Systems. In L. Steels and R. Brooks (eds), The Artificial Life Route to Artificial Intelligence. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wei-Po Lee
    • 1
  • John Hallam
    • 1
  • Henrik Hautop Lund
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations