First Three Generations of Evolved Robots

  • Jordan B. Pollack
  • Hod Lipson
  • Pablo Funes
  • Gregory Hornby
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2217)


The field of robotics today faces an economic predicament: most problems in the physical world are too difficult for the current state of the art. The difficulties associated with designing, building and controlling robots have led to a stasis, and robots in industry are only applied to simple and highly repetitive manufacturing tasks. Over the last few years we have been trying to address this challenge through an alternative approach: Rather than a seeking an intelligent general-purpose robot, we are seeking the process that can automatically design and fabricate special purpose mechanisms and controllers to achieve specific short-term objectives. This short paper provides a brief review of three generations of our research results. Automatically designed high part-count static structures that are buildable, automatically designed and manufactured dynamic electromechanical systems, and modular robots automatically designed through generative encoding. We expect that with continued improvement in simulation, manufacturing, and transfer, we will achieve the ability to automatically design and fabricate custom machinery for short-term deployment on specific tasks.


Evolutionary Design Defense Advance Research Project Agency Defense Advance Research Project Agency Modular Robot Direct Encode 
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.
    Angeline P. J., Saunders G. M., and Pollack J. B.. An evolutionary algorithm that constructs recurrent networks. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 5(1):54–65, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bentley P. and Kumar S.. Three ways to grow designs: A comparison of embryogenies of an evolutionary design problem. In Banzhaf, Daida, Eiben, Garzon, Honavar, Jakiel, and Smith, editors, Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, pages 35–43, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bentley P. J.. Generic Evolutionary Design of Solid Objects using a Genetic Algorithm. PhD thesis, Division of Computing and Control Systems, School of Engineering, The University of Huddersfield, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bentley P., editor. Evolutionary Design by Computers. Morgan-Kaufmann, San Francisco, 1999.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brooks R.. Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence, 47(1-3):139–160, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cliff D., Harvey I, and Husbands P.. Evolution of visual control systems for robot. In M. Srinivisan and S. Venkatesh, editors, From Living Eyes to Seeing Machines. Oxford, 1996.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cliff D., Noble J.. Knowledge-based vision and simple visual machines. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Series B, 352:1165–1175, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dimos D., Danforth S.C., and Cima M.J.. Solid freeform and additive fabrication. In J. A. Floro, editor, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Floreano D. and Mondada F.. Evolution of homing navigation in a real mo-bile robot. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Funes P. and Pollack. J.B. Computer evolution of buildable objects. In Phil Husbands and Inman Harvey, editors, Fourth European Conference on Artificial Life, pages 358–367, Cambridge, 1997. MITPress.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Funes P. and Pollack. J.B. Evolutionary body building: Adaptive physical designs for robots. Artificial Life, 4(4):337–357, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Funes P. and Pollack J. B.. Computer evolution of buildable objects. In Peter Bentley, editor, Evolutionary Design by Computers, pages 387–403. Morgan-Kaufmann, San Francisco, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gallagher J. C., Beer R. D., Espenschield K. S., and Quinn R. D.. Application of evolved locomotion controllers to a hexapod robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 19:95–103, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hornby G. S., Lipson H., and Pollack J. B.. Evolution of generative design systems for modular physical robots. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2001.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hornby G.S. and Pollack J. B Body-brain coevolution using l-systems as a generative encoding. In Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, 2001.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hornby G.S. and Pollack J. B.. The advantages of generative grammatical encodings for physical design. In Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2001.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Husbands P., Germy G., McIlhagga M., and Ives R.. Two applications of genetic algorithms to component design. In T. Fogarty, editor, Evolutionary Computing. LNCS 1143, pages 50–61. Springer-Verlag, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jakobi N.. Evolutionary robotics and the radical envelope of noise hypothesis. Adaptive Behavior, 6(1):131–174, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Juillé H. and Pollack J. B.. Dynamics of co-evolutionary learning. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, pages 526–534. MITPress, 1996.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kane C. and Schoenauer M.. Genetic operators for two-dimentional shape optimization. In J.-M. Alliot, E. Lutton, E. Ronald, M. Schoenauer, and D. Snyers, editors, Artificial Evolution-EA95. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kawauchi Y., Inaba M., and Fukuda T.. Genetic evolution and self-organization of cellular robotic system. JSME Int. J. Series C. (Dynamics, Control, Robotics, Design & Manufacturing), 38(3):501–509, 1999.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Komosinski M. and Ulatowski. S. Framsticks: Towards a simulation of a naturelike world, creatures and evolution. In Jean-Daniel Nicoud Dario Floreano and Francesco Mondada, editors, Proceedings of 5th European Conference on Artificial Life (ECAL99), volume 1674 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 261–265. Springer-Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee W., Hallam J., and Lund H.. A hybrid gp/ga approach for co-evolving controllers and robot bodies to achieve fitness-specified tasks. In Proceedings of IEEE 3rd International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, pages 384–389. IEEE Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lipson H and Pollack J.B.. Automatic design and manufacture of robotic lifeforms. Nature, 406(6799):974–978, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lipson, H., Pollack J. B., Suh N. P., 2001, “Promoting Modularity In Evolutionary Design”, Proceedings of DETC’01 2001 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, September 9–12, 2001, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, to appear.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lund H., Hallam J., and Lee W.. Evolving robot morphology. In Proceedings of IEEE Fourth International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, pages 197–202. IEEE Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lund H.. Evolving robot control systems. In Alexander, editor, Proceedings of 1NWGA. University of Vaasa, 1995.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Maja J Mataric and Dave Cliff. Challenges in evolving controllers for physical robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 19(1):67–83, 1996.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moravec H.P.. Rise of the robots. Scientific American, pages 124–135, December 1999.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morrison K. and Nguyen. T., On-board software for the mars pathfinder microrover. In Proceedings of the Second IAA International Conference on Low-Cost Planetary Missions. John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, April 1996.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nilsson N. J.. A mobile automaton: An application of artificial intelligence techniques. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 509–520, 1969.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pollack J.B. and Blair A. D.. Coevolution in the successful learning of backgammon strategy. Machine Learning, 32:225–240, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schoenauer M.. Shape representations and evolution schemes. In L. J. Fogel, P. J. Angeline, and T. Back, editors, Proceedings of the 5th Annual Conference on Evolutionary Programming. MITPress, 1996.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sims K. Evolving 3d morphology and behavior by competition. In R. Brooks and P. Maes, editors, Proceedings 4th Artificial Life Conference, pages 28–39. MITPress, 1994.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sincell M.. Physics meets the hideous bog beast. Science, 286(5439):398–399, October 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Suh N. P.. The Principles of Design. Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jordan B. Pollack
    • 1
  • Hod Lipson
    • 1
  • Pablo Funes
    • 1
  • Gregory Hornby
  1. 1.Computer Science Dept.Brandeis UniversityWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations