In this research, real robots are used to model the emergence and development of a symbolic communication system in a group of social agents. It is shown that as the predefined symbols of the language are transmitted among the robots, variations due to embodiment arise in the learned symbols. As a result of these variations, transmissibility of the randomly generated symbols of the language decreases. We introduce multiple cycles of iterated imitation during which the symbols of the language evolve and adapt to the uncertainties in robots’ sensors and actuators. Specific structures emerge in the learned symbols and transmissibility of the language increases. This process is proposed as a model that explains how structural syntax emerges and evolves in a symbolic communication system.
BakkerP.KuniyoshiY. (1996). Robot see, robot do: An overview of robot imitation. In Proceedings of AISB96 workshop on learning in robots and animals (pp. 3–11), Brighton, England.
2.
BeulsK.SteelsL. (2013). Agent-based models of strategies for the emergence and evolution of grammatical agreement. PLoS ONE, 8, e58960.
3.
BillardA.CalinonS.DillmannR.SchaalS. (2008). Robot programming by demonstration (pp. 1371–1394). New York, NY: Springer.
4.
BreazealC.BuchsbaumD.GrayJ.GatenbyD.BlumbergB. (2005). Learning from and about others: Towards using imitation to bootstrap the social understanding of others by robots. Artificial Life, 11, 31–62.
5.
ChristiansenM. H.KirbyS. (2003). Language evolution: Consensus and controversies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 300–307.
6.
DarwinC. (1859). On the origin of species. London, England: John Murray.
7.
DautenhahnK.NehanivC. L.AlissandrakisA. (2003). Learning by experience from others: Social learning and imitation in animals and robots. In KuhnR.MenzelR.MenzelW.RatschU.RichterM. M.StamatescuI.-O. (Eds.), Adaptivity and learning: An interdisciplinary debate (pp. 217–241). New York, NY: Springer.
8.
De GreeffJ.BelpaemeT. (2011). The development of shared meaning within different embodiments. In ICDL 2011 (Vol. 2, pp. 1–6). New York, NY: IEEE.
9.
De GreeffJ.NolfiS. (2010). Evolution of implicit and explicit communication in mobile robots. In NolfiS. (Ed.), Evolution of communication and language in embodied agents (pp. 179–214). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
10.
DemirisJ.HayesG. (1996). Imitative learning mechanisms in robots and humans. In KlingsporV. (Eds.), European workshop on learning robots (pp. 9–16), Bari, Italy.
11.
ErbasM. D.BullL.WinfieldA. F. T. (2015). On the evolution of behaviors through embodied imitation. Artificial Life, 21, 141–165.
12.
ErbasM. D.WinfieldA. F. T.BullL. (2014). Embodied imitation-enhanced reinforcement learning in multi-agent systems. Adaptive Behavior, 22, 31–50.
13.
GuenterF.BillardA. G. (2007). Using reinforcement learning to adapt an imitation task. In IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (pp. 1022–1027). New York, NY: IEEE.
14.
KirbyS. (2007). The evolution of meaning-space structure through iterated learning. In LyonC.NehanivC. L.CangelosiA. (Eds.), Emergence of communication and language (pp. 253–268). New York, NY: Springer.
15.
KirbyS.CornishH.SmithK. (2008). Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in the human language. PNAS, 105, 10681–10686.
16.
LiuW.WinfieldA. F. T. (2011). Open-hardware e-puck Linux extension board for experimental swarm robotics research. Microprocessors and Microsystems, 35, 60–67.
17.
MondadaF.BonaniM.RaemyX.PughJ.CianciC.KlaptoczA.. . . MartinoliA. (2009). The e-puck, a robot designed for education in engineering. In 9th conference on autonomous robot systems and competitions (pp. 59–65). Retrieved from https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/135236?ln=en
18.
NevensJ.SprangerM. (2017). Computational models of tutor feedback in language acquisition. In Joint IEEE International conference on development and learning and epigenetic robotics (Icdl-EpiRob) (pp. 221–226). New York, NY: IEEE.
19.
NicolescuM.MataricM. J. (2007). Task learning through imitation and human-robot interaction. In NehanivC. L.DautenhahnK. (Eds.), Imitation and social learning in robots, humans and animals (pp. 407–424). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
OztopE.KawatoM.ArbibM. A. (2013). Mirror neurons: Functions, mechanisms and models. Neuroscience Letters, 540, 43–55.
21.
QuigleyM.GerkeyB.ConleyK.FaustJ.FooteT.LeibsJ.. . . NgA. Y. (2009). ROS: An open-source robot operating system. In Proceedings of open-source software workshop of the international conference on robotics and automation, Kobe, Japan.
SteelsL. (2003). Evolving grounded communication for robots. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 308–312.
24.
SteelsL.SprangerM. (2008). Can body language shape body image?Artificial Life, XI, 577–584.
25.
SteelsL.SprangerM.van TrijpR.HferS.HildM. (2012). Emergent action language on real robots. In SteelsL.HildM. (Eds.), Language grounding in robots (pp. 255–276). New York, NY: Springer.
26.
VogtP. (2015). Self-organisation of conceptual spaces from quality dimensions. In GärdenforsP. (Ed.), Applications of conceptual spaces: The case for geometric knowledge representation (pp. 141–163). New York, NY: Springer.
27.
ZentallT. R. (2001). Imitation in animals: Evidence. Function, and Mechanisms, Cybernetics and Systems, 32, 63–96.
