The trade-off between morphology and control in the co-optimized design of robots.

Conventionally, robot morphologies are developed through simulations and calculations, and different control methods are applied afterwards. Assuming that simulations and predictions are simplified representations of our reality, how sure can roboticists be that the chosen morphology is the most ade...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Andre Rosendo, Marco von Atzigen, Fumiya Iida
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2017-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5638323?pdf=render
id doaj-2d33bf65488e44308f5a5b8ec9015547
record_format Article
spelling doaj-2d33bf65488e44308f5a5b8ec90155472020-11-24T21:27:10ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032017-01-011210e018610710.1371/journal.pone.0186107The trade-off between morphology and control in the co-optimized design of robots.Andre RosendoMarco von AtzigenFumiya IidaConventionally, robot morphologies are developed through simulations and calculations, and different control methods are applied afterwards. Assuming that simulations and predictions are simplified representations of our reality, how sure can roboticists be that the chosen morphology is the most adequate for the possible control choices in the real-world? Here we study the influence of the design parameters in the creation of a robot with a Bayesian morphology-control (MC) co-optimization process. A robot autonomously creates child robots from a set of possible design parameters and uses Bayesian Optimization (BO) to infer the best locomotion behavior from real world experiments. Then, we systematically change from an MC co-optimization to a control-only (C) optimization, which better represents the traditional way that robots are developed, to explore the trade-off between these two methods. We show that although C processes can greatly improve the behavior of poor morphologies, such agents are still outperformed by MC co-optimization results with as few as 25 iterations. Our findings, on one hand, suggest that BO should be used in the design process of robots for both morphological and control parameters to reach optimal performance, and on the other hand, point to the downfall of current design methods in face of new search techniques.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5638323?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Andre Rosendo
Marco von Atzigen
Fumiya Iida
spellingShingle Andre Rosendo
Marco von Atzigen
Fumiya Iida
The trade-off between morphology and control in the co-optimized design of robots.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Andre Rosendo
Marco von Atzigen
Fumiya Iida
author_sort Andre Rosendo
title The trade-off between morphology and control in the co-optimized design of robots.
title_short The trade-off between morphology and control in the co-optimized design of robots.
title_full The trade-off between morphology and control in the co-optimized design of robots.
title_fullStr The trade-off between morphology and control in the co-optimized design of robots.
title_full_unstemmed The trade-off between morphology and control in the co-optimized design of robots.
title_sort trade-off between morphology and control in the co-optimized design of robots.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2017-01-01
description Conventionally, robot morphologies are developed through simulations and calculations, and different control methods are applied afterwards. Assuming that simulations and predictions are simplified representations of our reality, how sure can roboticists be that the chosen morphology is the most adequate for the possible control choices in the real-world? Here we study the influence of the design parameters in the creation of a robot with a Bayesian morphology-control (MC) co-optimization process. A robot autonomously creates child robots from a set of possible design parameters and uses Bayesian Optimization (BO) to infer the best locomotion behavior from real world experiments. Then, we systematically change from an MC co-optimization to a control-only (C) optimization, which better represents the traditional way that robots are developed, to explore the trade-off between these two methods. We show that although C processes can greatly improve the behavior of poor morphologies, such agents are still outperformed by MC co-optimization results with as few as 25 iterations. Our findings, on one hand, suggest that BO should be used in the design process of robots for both morphological and control parameters to reach optimal performance, and on the other hand, point to the downfall of current design methods in face of new search techniques.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5638323?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT andrerosendo thetradeoffbetweenmorphologyandcontrolinthecooptimizeddesignofrobots
AT marcovonatzigen thetradeoffbetweenmorphologyandcontrolinthecooptimizeddesignofrobots
AT fumiyaiida thetradeoffbetweenmorphologyandcontrolinthecooptimizeddesignofrobots
AT andrerosendo tradeoffbetweenmorphologyandcontrolinthecooptimizeddesignofrobots
AT marcovonatzigen tradeoffbetweenmorphologyandcontrolinthecooptimizeddesignofrobots
AT fumiyaiida tradeoffbetweenmorphologyandcontrolinthecooptimizeddesignofrobots
_version_ 1725976299434934272