Rocking Stamper and Jumping Snakes from a Dynamical Systems Approach to Artificial Life

Abstract

Dynamical systems offer intriguing possibilities as a substrate for the generation of behavior because of their rich behavioral complexity. However this complexity together with the largely covert relation between the parameters and the behavior of the agent is also the main hindrance in the goal oriented design of a behavior system. This paper presents a general approach to the self-regulation of dynamical systems so that the design problem is circumvented. We consider the controller (a neural net work) as the mediator for changes in the sensor values over time and define a dynamics for the parameters of the controller by maximizing the dynamical complexity of the sensorimotor loop under the condition that the consequences of the actions taken are still predictable. This very general principle is given a concrete mathematical formulation and is implemented in an extremely robust and versatile algorithm for the parameter dynamics of the controller. We consider two different applications, a mechanical device called the rocking stamper and the ODE simulations of a “snake” with five degrees of freedom. In these and many other examples studied we observed various behavior modes of high dynamical complexity

Keywords

autonomous robots self-organization homeostasis dynamical systems learning

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ashby, R. W. (1954). Design for a Brain. London: Chapman and Hill .

Beer, R. D. (1995). A dynamical systems perspective on agent-environment interaction . Artificial Intelligence, 72(1-2), 173-215 .

Bredenfeld, A. , Jaeger, H. , & Christaller, T. (2001). Mobile robots with dual dynamics . ERCIM News, 42-42 .

Cannon, W. B. (1939). The Wisdom of the Body. New York: Norton .

Der, R. (2005a). Homeokinesis and the moderation of complexity in neural systems. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Der, R. (2005b). Videos of self-organised robot behavior. http://robot.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/videos.

Der, R. , Hesse, F. , & Liebscher, R. (2005). Contingent robot behavior generated by self-referential dynamical systems. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Der, R. , & Liebscher, R. (2002). True autonomy from self-organized adaptivity . In Proceedings of Workshop on Biologically Inspired Robotics, Bristol. http://www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/der/Veroeff/bristol.pdf.

Di Paolo, E. D. (2003). Organismically-inspired robotics: Homeostatic adaptation and natural teleology beyond the closed sensorimotor loop. In K. Murase & T. Asakura (Eds.), Dynamical systems approach to embodiment and sociality (pp. 19-42) Adelaide: Advanced Knowledge International .

10.

Glasersfeld, E. V. (1995). Radical Constructivism: A Way of knowing and learning. Washington DC: Falmer .

11.

Haschke, R. , & Steil, J. J. (2005). Input space bifurcation manifolds of recurrent neural networks . Neurocomputing, 64(C), 25-38 .

12.

Hock, H. S. , Schöner, G. , & Giese, M. A. (2003). The dynamical foundations of motion pattern formation: Stability, selective adaptation, and perceptual continuity . Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 429-457 .

13.

Hülse, M. , & Pasemann, F. (2002). Dynamical neural Schmitt trigger for robot control. Volume 2415 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. New York: Springer .

14.

Komosinski, M. (2000). The world of framsticks: Simulation, evolution, interaction . In Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Virtual Worlds (VW2000), Volume 1834 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 214-224 ). New York: Springer.

15.

Komosinski, M. (2005). Computer science in evolutionary biology and robotics: Framsticks artificial life. http://www.framsalife.pl.

16.

Kuniyoshi, Y. , Yorozu, Y. , Ohmura, Y. , Terada, K. , Otani, T. , Nagakubo, A. , & Yamamoto, T. (2003). From humanoid embodiment to theory of mind. In Embodied artificial Intelligence (pp. 202-218) New York: Springer .

17.

Maturana, H. R. , & Varela, F. J. (1979). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The realization of the living. Boston: Reidel .

18.

Nolfi, S. , & Floreano, D. (2000). Evolutionary robotics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

19.

Pasemann, F. , Hild, M. , & Zahedi, K. (2003). SO(2)-networks as neural oscillators. In J. Mira & J. Alvarez (Eds.), Computational methods in neural modeling (pp. 144-151), New York: Springer .

20.

Pfeifer, R. , & Scheier, C. (1999). Understanding Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press .

21.

Port, R. F. , & van Gelder, T. (Eds.) (1995). Mind as motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

22.

Schöner, G. , Dose, M. , & Engels, C. (1995). Dynamics of behavior: Theory and applications for autonomous robot architectures . Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 16, 213-245 .

23.

Sims, K. (1994). Evolving virtual creatures . In SIGGRAPH’94: Proceedings of the 21st annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques (pp. 15-22 ). ACM Press.

24.

Smith, R. (2005). Open dynamical engine. http://www.ode.org/.

25.

Steinhage, A. (1997). Dynamical Systems for the Generation of Navigation Behavior. Ph.D. thesis, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany.

26.

Turrigiano, G. G. , & Nelson, S. B. (2004). Homeostatic plasticity in the developing nervous system . Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 97-107 .

27.

Williams, H. (2004). Homeostatic plasticity in recurrent neural networks . In S. Schaal (Ed.), From Animals to Animats: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference On Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, (Vol. 8). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.