190 likes | 393 Views
Eiji Uchibe, Okinawa Institute of Science Minoru Asada, Osaka University Proceedings of the IEEE, July 2006. Incremental Coevolution With Competitive and Cooperative Tasks in a Multirobot Environment. Presented By: Dan DeBlasio For : CAP 6671, Spring 2008 8 April 2008. Coevolution.
E N D
Eiji Uchibe, Okinawa Institute of Science Minoru Asada, Osaka University Proceedings of the IEEE, July 2006 Incremental Coevolution WithCompetitive and CooperativeTasks in a MultirobotEnvironment Presented By: Dan DeBlasio For : CAP 6671, Spring 2008 8 April 2008
Coevolution • Two (or more) separate populations • Evolve the populations separately • Creates “arms race”
Competitive v. Cooperative • Have agents from each population compete to gain fitness • Usually one is being evaluated at a time • Agents from multiple populations work together to solve a problem • Team evaluated as a whole, not each agent
Robocup • Special because you need both cooperative and competitive components • Groups of agents need to work together as a team (cooperation) • Need to defeat the other team (competitive)
Paper v. My Work • Presented for a small league team • 3 agents per team • Work done on a simulation league • Up to 11 players per team
Motivation • Evaluation is a big issue • Even with two populations of 100 agents, to accurately evaluate each player in population A, it would need to play each agent in B • That would be 10,000 simulated games per generation
How do we reduce the number of games per generation, without degrading the results if our fitness evaluation?
Fitness Sharing • At each iteration, agents are selected from each population to actually control the players • After evaluation of each agent, the system updates the fitness value of each agent in the population using its similarity to the agent that was selected.
Fitness Sharing • Each Individual in population has: • π - policy (brain) • v - (previous)performance value • f - fitness
Fitness Sharing • At the end of each generation, the individuals not selected to participated are assigned fitness as follows: f is calculated using the similarity of j to the selected player on each game w (similarity) is calculated by seeing if each action state pair would have happened in j as it did in the game l
Policy Representation • Leaves are simple executions (kick, pass, run) • Branches contain an object and a description • If true, go left
Genetic Manipulation • Basic GP manipulation is used • Crossover • Select two points from parents trees, swap subtrees • Mutation • Change random action, object, or description in tree • Add new branch
Selection • v is calculated for each individual as follows: Here ~f is a random number between 0 and the minimum fitness in the set of best Also j1 and j2 are the parents selected in crossover
Evolution Schedule • 3 robot environment • Keeper • Shooter • passer
Evolution Schedule • Cooperative Schedule • Train mainly the shooter and passer to work together • Keeper does not get much playing time • Competitive schedule • Keeper and shooter are evolved • Passer is left out much of the time • No Schedule • All three play all the time
Evolution Schedule • Multiple Schedules • For each game select stage from the other three schedule types
Results Average Fitness using different schedules