Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Adaptive Behavior
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Walker, J.
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Evolving Controllers for Real Robots: A Survey of the Literature

Joanne Walker

Department of Computer Science, University of Wales, jnw{at}aber.ac.uk

Simon Garrett

Department of Computer Science, University of Wales, Srng{at}aber.ac.uk

Myra Wilson

Department of Computer Science, University of Wales, mxw{at}aber.ac.uk

For many years, researchers in the field of mobile robotics have been investigating the use of genetic and evolutionary computation (GEC) to aid the development of mobile robot controllers. Alongside the fundamental choices of the GEC mechanism and its operators, which apply to both simulated and physical evolutionary robotics, other issues have emerged which are specific to the application of GEC to physical mobile robotics. This article presents a survey of recent methods in GEC-developed mobile robot controllers, focusing on those methods that include a physical robot at some point in the learning loop. It simultaneously relates each of these methods to a framework of two orthogonal issues: the use of a simulated and/or a physical robot, and the use of finite, training phase evolution prior to a task and/or lifelong adaptation by evolution during a task. A list of evaluation criteria are presented and each of the surveyed methods are compared to them. Analyses of the framework and evaluation criteria suggest several possibilities; however, there appear to be particular advantages in combining simulated, training phase evolution (TPE) with lifelong adaptation by evolution (LAE) on a physical robot.

Key Words: evolutionary robotics • physical robots • simulation • training • lifelong adaptation by evolution.

Adaptive Behavior, Vol. 11, No. 3, 179-203 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/1059712303113003


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Adaptive BehaviorHome page
S. Wischmann, M. Hulse, J. F. Knabe, and F. Pasemann
Synchronization of Internal Neural Rhythms in Multi-Robotic Systems
Adaptive Behavior, June 1, 2006; 14(2): 117 - 127.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Adaptive BehaviorHome page
K. Doya and E. Uchibe
The Cyber Rodent Project: Exploration of Adaptive Mechanisms for Self-Preservation and Self-Reproduction
Adaptive Behavior, June 1, 2005; 13(2): 149 - 160.
[Abstract] [PDF]