Genome Variations

Effects on the Robustness of Neuroevolved Control for Swarm Robotics Systems
  • Pedro Romano
  • Luís NunesEmail author
  • Anders Lyhne Christensen
  • Miguel Duarte
  • Sancho Moura Oliveira
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 417)


Manual design of self-organized behavioral control for swarms of robots is a complex task. Neuroevolution has proved a viable alternative given its capacity to automatically synthesize controllers. In this paper, we introduce the concept of Genome Variations (GV) in the neuroevolution of behavioral control for robotic swarms. In an evolutionary setup with GV, a slight mutation is applied to the evolving neural network parameters before they are copied to the robots in a swarm. The genome variation is individual to each robot, thereby generating a slightly heterogeneous swarm. GV represents a novel approach to the evolution of robust behaviors, expected to generate more stable and robust individual controllers, and benefit swarm behaviors that can deal with small heterogeneities in the behavior of other members in the swarm. We conduct experiments using an aggregation task, and compare the evolved solutions to solutions evolved under ideal, noise-free conditions, and to solutions evolved with traditional sensor noise.


Neuroevolution Robot controllers Genome Variations Swarm robotics Robustness Heterogeneity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bäck, T., Schwefel, H.P.: An overview of evolutionary algorithms for parameter optimization. Evolutionary Computation 1(1), 1–23 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baldassarre, G., Nolfi, S., Parisi, D.: Evolving mobile robots able to display collective behaviors. Artificial Life 9(3), 255–267 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beer, R.D., Gallagher, J.C.: Evolving Dynamical Neural Networks for Adaptive Behavior. Adaptive Behavior 1(1), 91–122 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bongard, J.C.: Evolutionary robotics. Communications of the ACM 56(8), 74–83 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brooks, R.A.: Elephants don’t play chess. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 6(1), 3–15 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Camazine, S., Deneubourg, J.L., Franks, N.R., Sneyd, J., Theraulaz, G., Bonabeau, E.: Self-organisation in biological systems. Princeton University Press (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christensen, A.L., Oliveira, S., Postolache, O., de Oliveira, M.J., Sargento, S., Santana, P., Nunes, L., Velez, F., Sebastião, P., Costa, V., Duarte, M., Gomes, J., Rodrigues, T., Silva, F.: Design of communication and control for swarms of aquatic surface drones. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence (ICAART), pp. 548–555. SCITEPRESS, Lisbon (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cliff, D., Husbands, P., Harvey, I.: Evolving visually guided robots. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior (SAB), pp. 374–383. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D’Ambrosio, D.B., Stanley, K.O.: Scalable multiagent learning through indirect encoding of policy geometry. Evolutionary Intelligence 6(1), 1–26 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dorigo, M., Trianni, V., Şahin, E., Groß, R., Labella, T., Baldassarre, G., Nolfi, S., Deneubourg, J., Mondada, F., Floreano, D., Gambardella, L.M.: Evolving self-organizing behaviors for a swarm-bot. Autonomous Robots 17(2), 223–245 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duarte, M., Oliveira, S., Christensen, A.L.: Towards artificial evolution of complex behavior observed in insect colonies. In: Proceedings of the Portuguese Conference on Artificial Intelligence (EPIA), pp. 153–167. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Duarte, M., Silva, F., Rodrigues, T., Oliveira, S.M., Christensen, A.L.: JBotEvolver: a versatile simulation platform for evolutionary robotics. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Synthesis & Simulation of Living Systems (ALIFE), pp. 210–211. MIT Press, Cambridge (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ficici, S.G., Watson, R.A., Pollack, J.B.: Embodied evolution: a response to challenges in evolutionary robotics. In: Proceedings of the European Workshop on Learning Robots, pp. 14–22. Citeseer (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gomes, J., Mariano, P., Christensen, A.L.: Cooperative coevolution of partially heterogeneous multiagent systems. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 297–305. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gomes, J., Urbano, P., Christensen, A.L.: Evolution of swarm robotics systems with novelty search. Swarm Intelligence 7(2–3), 115–144 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gomez, F.J., Miikkulainen, R.: Transfer of neuroevolved controllers in unstable domains. In: Proceedings of Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO), pp. 957–968. Springer, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jakobi, N.: Evolutionary robotics and the radical envelope-of-noise hypothesis. Adaptive Behavior 6(2), 325–368 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lehman, J., Risi, S., D’Ambrosio, D.B., Stanley, K.O.: Rewarding reactivity to evolve robust controllers without multiple trials or noise. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Life (ALIFE), pp. 379–386. MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miglino, O., Lund, H.H., Nolfi, S.: Evolving mobile robots in simulated and real environments. Artificial Life 2(4), 417–434 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nitschke, G.S., Eiben, A.E., Schut, M.C.: Evolving team behaviors with specialization. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 13(4), 493–536 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paenke, I., Branke, J., Jin, Y.: Efficient search for robust solutions by means of evolutionary algorithms and fitness approximation. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 10(4), 405–420 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Potter, M.A., Meeden, L.A., Schultz, A.C.: Heterogeneity in the coevolved behaviors of mobile robots: the emergence of specialists. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 1337–1343. Citeseer (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Quinn, M., Smith, L., Mayley, G., Husbands, P.: Evolving controllers for a homogeneous system of physical robots: structured cooperation with minimal sensors. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences 361(1811), 2321–2343 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shang, B., Crowder, R., Zauner, K.P.: Simulation of hardware variations in swarm robots. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 4066–4071. IEEE Press, Piscataway (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Silva, F., Urbano, P., Correia, L., Christensen, A.L.: odNEAT: An Algorithm for Decentralised Online Evolution of Robotic Controllers. Evolutionary Computation 23(3), 421–449 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Trianni, V., Nolfi, S., Dorigo, M.: Cooperative hole avoidance in a swarm-bot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 54(2), 97–103 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Waibel, M., Keller, L., Floreano, D.: Genetic team composition and level of selection in the evolution of cooperation. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 13(3), 648–660 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pedro Romano
    • 1
  • Luís Nunes
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anders Lyhne Christensen
    • 1
  • Miguel Duarte
    • 1
  • Sancho Moura Oliveira
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto de TelecomunicaçõesInstituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL)LisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations