Real-World Reproduction of Evolved Robot Morphologies: Automated Categorization and Evaluation

1. Revzen, S., Bhoite, M., Macasieb, A., Yim, M.: Structure synthesis on-the-fly in a modular robot. In: 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 4797–4802 (2011)

   Google Scholar 

2. Hornby, G., Takamura, S., Yokono, J., Hanagata, O., Yamamoto, T., Fujita, M.: Evolving robust gaits with AIBO. In: Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation ICRA 2000, vol. 3, pp. 3040–3045 (2000)

   Google Scholar 

3. Lipson, H., Pollack, J.: Automatic design and manufacture of robotic lifeforms. Nature 406, 974–978 (2000)

   Article  Google Scholar 

4. Leger, C.: Automated synthesis and optimization of robot configurations: an evolutionary approach. Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University (1999)

   Google Scholar 

5. Macinnes, I., Di Paolo, E.: Crawling out of the simulation: evolving real robot morphologies using cheap reusable modules. In: Pollack, J., Bedau, M., Husbands, P., Ikegami, T., Watson, R. (eds.) Artificial Life IX: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Life, pp. 94–99. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)

   Google Scholar 

6. Sims, K.: Evolving virtual creatures. In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, SIGGRAPH 1994, pp. 15–22 (1994)

   Google Scholar 

7. Bongard, J.: Evolving modular genetic regulatory networks. In: Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC 2002, vol. 2, pp. 1872–1877. IEEE (2002)

   Google Scholar 

8. Auerbach, J.E., Bongard, J.C.: Environmental influence on the evolution of morphological complexity in machines. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10(1), e1003399 (2014)

   Article  Google Scholar 

9. Hiller, J., Lipson, H.: Automatic design and manufacture of soft robots. IEEE Trans. Robot. 28(2), 457–466 (2012)

   Article  Google Scholar 

10. Hornby, G.S., Lipson, H., Pollack, J.B.: Generative representations for the automated design of modular physical robots. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 19(4), 703–719 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

11. Komosinski, M., Rotaru-Varga, A.: Comparison of different genotype encodings for simulated three-dimensional agents. Artif. Life 7(4), 395–418 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

12. Jakobi, N., Husbands, P., Harvey, I.: Noise and the reality gap: the use of simulation in evolutionary robotics. Advances in Artificial Life. LNCS, vol. 929, pp. 704–720. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

13. Samuelsen, E., Glette, K., Torresen, J.: A hox gene inspired generative approach to evolving robot morphology. In: Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pp. 751–758. ACM (2013)

    Google Scholar 

14. Samuelsen, E., Glette, K.: Some distance measures for morphological diversification in generative evolutionary robotics. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pp. 721–728. ACM (2014)

    Google Scholar 

15. Röfer, T.: Evolutionary gait-optimization using a fitness function based on proprioception. In: Nardi, D., Riedmiller, M., Sammut, C., Santos-Victor, J. (eds.) RoboCup 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3276, pp. 310–322. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

16. Koos, S., Mouret, J.B., Doncieux, S.: The transferability approach: crossing the reality gap in evolutionary robotics. IEEE Trans. Evol.Comput. 17(1), 122–145 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references