HydroGen: Automatically Generating Self-Assembly Code for Hydron Units

  • George Konidaris
  • Tim Taylor
  • John Hallam


This paper introduces HydroGen, an object compiler system that produces self-assembly instructions for configurations of Hydron units. The Hydron is distinct from other self-reconfigurable robotic units in that it operates under water, and can thus move without being constrained by gravity of connectivity requirements. It is therefore well suited to self-assembly as opposed to self-reconfiguration, and faces similar control problems to those expected in nanotechnology applications.

We describe the first version of the Hydron Object Compiler and its supporting software. The object compiler uses a basic instruction set to produce instructions for the distributed self-assembly of any given connected configuration of Hydron units. We briefly outline the implementation of a preliminary interpreter for this instruction set for Hydron units in a reasonably realistic simulated environment, and demonstrate its operation on two example configurations.


Docking Site Unit Configuration Connectivity Requirement Object Configuration Controller Implementation 
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.
    A.V. Aho, R. Sethi, and J.D. Ullman. Compilers: Principles, techniques and tools. Addison-Wesley, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    K.D. Kotay and D.L. Rus. Algorithms for self-reconfiguring molecule motion planning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Kumar and P.J. Bentley. An introduction to computational development. In S. Kumar and P.J. Bentley, editors, On Growth, Form and Computers, chapter 1, pages 1–44. Elsevier, 2003.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. Lodish, A. Berk, S.L. Zipursky, P. Matsudaira, D. Baltimore, and J. Darnell. Molecular Cell Biology. W.H. Freeman & Co., New York, NY, 4th edition, 1999.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Østergaard and H. H. Lund. Evolving control for modular robotic units. In Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE International Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation, Kobe, Japan, 2003.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Reil. Dynamics of gene expression in an artificial genome —implications for biology and artificial ontogeny. In D. Floreano, J.-D. Nicoud, and F. Mondada, editors, Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Artificial Life (ECAL99), 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. Støy. Controlling self-reconfiguration using cellular automata and gradients. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Autonomous Systems (IAS-8), March 2004.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. Taylor. A genetic regulatory network-inspired real-time controller for a group of underwater robots. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Autonomous Systems (IAS-8), March 2004.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. Tomita, S. Murata, H. Kurokawa, E. Yoshida, and S. Kokaji. Self-assembly and self-repair method for a distributed mechanical system. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 15(6): 1035–1045, December 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Yim, Y. Zhang, J. Lamping, and E. Mao. Distributed control for 3D metamorphosis. Autonomous Robots, 10(1):45–56, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • George Konidaris
    • 1
  • Tim Taylor
    • 1
  • John Hallam
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Perception, Action and BehaviourUniversity of EdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations