Some Approaches for Reusing Behaviour Based Robot Cognitive Architectures Obtained Through Evolution

  • R. J. Duro
  • J. Santos
  • J. A. Becerra
Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ, volume 109)


This chapter provides a vision of some of the work we have been carrying out with the objective of making evolutionarily obtained behaviour based architectures and modules for autonomous robots more standardized and interchangeable. These architectures are based on a hierarchical behaviour structure where all of the modules, as well as their interconnections, are automatically obtained through evolutionary processes. The objective has been to obtain practical structures that would work in real robots operating in real environments and it is a first step towards a more ambitious approach in which no inkling to which would be the optimal organization of the modules would be provided. The emphasis of this work is to produce behaviour based structures that work on real robots operating in real environments and to be able to obtain them as independent of the platform as possible. To address this problem we have introduced the concept of virtual sensors and effectors in behaviour based architectures and studied different approaches to automatically obtain them.


Behaviour Module Infrared Sensor Real Robot Virtual Sensor Evolutionary Robotic 
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.
    Arbib MA (1992) Schema Theory. In: The Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, 2nd ed., S Shapiro (ed), Wiley-Interscience, New York, N.Y., pp 1427–43Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arkin RC (1998) Behaviour Based Robotics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becerra JA, Santos J, Duro R.J (1999) Progressive Construction of Compound Behaviour Controllers for Autonomous Robots Using Temporal Information. Advances in Artificial Life, Dario Floreano, Jean-Daniel Nicoud and Francesco Mondada (eds). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1674:324–328, Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beer RD, Gallagher JC (1992) Evolving Dynamical Neural Networks for Adaptive Behaviour. Adaptive Behaviour 1 (1): 91–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brooks RA (1986) Achieving Artificial Intelligence through Building Robots. A.I. Memo 898, MIT, AI LabGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brooks RA (1991) Intelligence without Representation. Artificial Intelligence 47: 139–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cliff D, Harvey I, Husbands P (1992) Incremental Evolution of Neural Network Architectures for Adaptive Behaviour. Tech. Rep. No. CSRP256, Brighton, School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, University of Sussex, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Colombetti M, Dorigo M, Borghi G (1996) Behaviour Analysis and Training–A Methodology for Behaviour Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 26 (3): 365–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Floreano D, Mondada F (1998) Evolutionary Neurocontrollers for Autonomous Mobile Robots. Neural Networks 11: 1461–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harvey I (1996) Artificial Evolution and Real Robots. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Artificial Life and Robotics (AROB), Masanori Sugisaka (ed). Beppu, Japan, pp 138–141Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harvey I, Husbands P, Cliff D (1993) Issues in Evolutionary Robotics, J-A Meyer, H Roitblat, S Wilson (eds). From Animals to Animats 2. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behaviour (SAB92), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 364–373Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maes P (1990) Bottom-up Mechanism for Behaviour Selection in an Artificial Creature. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behaviour (SAB90)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mataric MJ (1992) Integration of Representation into Goal Driven Behaviour Based Robotics. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 8 (3): 304–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jakobi N (1997) Evolutionary Robotics and the Radical Envelope of Noise Hypothesis. Adaptive Behaviour 6 (2): 325–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marin J, Solé RV (1999) Macroevolutionary Algorithms. A New Optimization Method on Fitness Landscapes. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 3 (4): 272–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nolfi S (1997) Evolving Non-Trivial Behaviours on Real Robots: A Garbage Collecting Robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 22: 187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nolfi S (1997) Using Emergent Modularity to Develop Control Systems for Mobile Robots. Adaptive Behaviour 5 (3/4): 343–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pfeifer R, Scheier C (1999) Understanding Intelligence, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pasemann F., Steinmetz U., Hulse M. (2000) ‘Robot Control and the Evolution of Modular Neurodynamics“ Workshop on Evolution and Neural Control of Autonomous Systems, Jena, Germany.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Urzelai J, Floreano D, Dorigo M, Colombetti M (1998) Incremental Robot Shaping. Connection Science Journal 10 (384): 341–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van de Velde W (1993) Towards Learning Robots. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. J. Duro
    • 1
  • J. Santos
    • 1
  • J. A. Becerra
    • 1
  1. 1.Grupo de Sistemas AutónomosUniversidade da CoruñaSpain

Personalised recommendations