Scalable Co-Optimization of Morphology and Control in Embodied Machines

Evolution sculpts both the body plans and nervous systems of agents together over time. In contrast, in AI and robotics, a robot's body plan is usually designed by hand, and control policies are then optimized for that fixed design. The task of simultaneously co-optimizing the morphology and controller of an embodied robot has remained a challenge. In psychology, the theory of embodied cognition posits that behavior arises from a close coupling between body plan and sensorimotor control, which suggests why co-optimizing these two subsystems is so difficult: most evolutionary changes to morphology tend to adversely impact sensorimotor control, leading to an overall decrease in behavioral performance. Here, we further examine this hypothesis and demonstrate a technique for "morphological innovation protection", which temporarily reduces selection pressure on recently morphologically-changed individuals, thus enabling evolution some time to "readapt" to the new morphology with subsequent control policy mutations. We show the potential for this method to avoid local optima and converge to similar highly fit morphologies across widely varying initial conditions, while sustaining fitness improvements further into optimization. While this technique is admittedly only the first of many steps that must be taken to achieve scalable optimization of embodied machines, we hope that theoretical insight into the cause of evolutionary stagnation in current methods will help to enable the automation of robot design and behavioral training -- while simultaneously providing a testbed to investigate the theory of embodied cognition

A Minimal Developmental Model Can Increase Evolvability in Soft Robots

Different subsystems of organisms adapt over many time scales, such as rapid changes in the nervous system (learning), slower morphological and neurological change over the lifetime of the organism (postnatal development), and change over many generations (evolution). Much work has focused on instantiating learning or evolution in robots, but relatively little on development. Although many theories have been forwarded as to how development can aid evolution, it is difficult to isolate each such proposed mechanism. Thus, here we introduce a minimal yet embodied model of development: the body of the robot changes over its lifetime, yet growth is not influenced by the environment. We show that even this simple developmental model confers evolvability because it allows evolution to sweep over a larger range of body plans than an equivalent non-developmental system, and subsequent heterochronic mutations 'lock in' this body plan in more morphologically-static descendants. Future work will involve gradually complexifying the developmental model to determine when and how such added complexity increases evolvability

How robot morphology and training order affect the learning of multiple behaviors

Abstract — Automatically synthesizing behaviors for robots with articulated bodies poses a number of challenges beyond those encountered when generating behaviors for simpler agents. One such challenge is how to optimize a controller that can orchestrate dynamic motion of different parts of the body at different times. This paper presents an incremental shaping method that addresses this challenge: it trains a controller to both coordinate a robot’s leg motions to achieve directed locomotion toward an object, and then coordinate gripper motion to achieve lifting once the object is reached. It is shown that success is dependent on the order in which these behaviors are learned, and that despite the fact that one robot can master these behaviors better than another with a different morphology, this learning order is invariant across the two robot morphologies investigated here. This suggests that aspects of the task environment, learning algorithm or the controller dictate learning order more than the choice of morphology. I

Interoceptive robustness through environment-mediated morphological development

Typically, AI researchers and roboticists try to realize intelligent behavior in machines by tuning parameters of a predefined structure (body plan and/or neural network architecture) using evolutionary or learning algorithms. Another but not unrelated longstanding property of these systems is their brittleness to slight aberrations, as highlighted by the growing deep learning literature on adversarial examples. Here we show robustness can be achieved by evolving the geometry of soft robots, their control systems, and how their material properties develop in response to one particular interoceptive stimulus (engineering stress) during their lifetimes. By doing so we realized robots that were equally fit but more robust to extreme material defects (such as might occur during fabrication or by damage thereafter) than robots that did not develop during their lifetimes, or developed in response to a different interoceptive stimulus (pressure). This suggests that the interplay between changes in the containing systems of agents (body plan and/or neural architecture) at different temporal scales (evolutionary and developmental) along different modalities (geometry, material properties, synaptic weights) and in response to different signals (interoceptive and external perception) all dictate those agents' abilities to evolve or learn capable and robust strategies