ev evolutionary automation of coordinated aut autono
play

Ev Evolutionary Automation of Coordinated Aut Autono nomous us - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Ev Evolutionary Automation of Coordinated Aut Autono nomous us Vehi hicles Chien-Lun Huang (Allen) and Dr Geoff Nitsschke Increased research in adaptive control systems for autonomous vehicles. Existing research focuses on autonomous


  1. Ev Evolutionary Automation of Coordinated Aut Autono nomous us Vehi hicles Chien-Lun Huang (Allen) and Dr Geoff Nitsschke

  2. • Increased research in adaptive control systems for autonomous vehicles. • Existing research focuses on autonomous control of single vehicle or limited noise in Motivation the environment • Little research into comparison between various evolutionary search methods for autonomous vehicle behaviour

  3. Neuro-Evolution of Augmenting Topologies (NEAT) directed evolutionary search. We compared three different search methods: 1. Objective-based 2. Behaviour-based (Novelty Search) Methods 3. Hybrid (Objective + Behaviour) Goal: evolve effective and efficient coordinated driving behaviour through given roads

  4. Neuro-Evolution of Augmenting Topologies (NEAT) directed evolutionary search. We compared three different search methods: 1. Objective-based Methods

  5. Neuro-Evolution of Augmenting Topologies (NEAT) directed evolutionary search. We compared three different search methods: 1. Objective-based 2. Behaviour-based (Novelty Search) Methods k – k-Nearest Neighbours in generation + archive dist – Euclidean Distance μ – i th nearest neighbour X – behaviour w.r.t novelty metric Behaviour Characterisation: Speed and Cohesion, Speed * and Location *experimentally determined

  6. Neuro-Evolution of Augmenting Topologies (NEAT) directed evolutionary search. We compared three different search methods: 1. Objective-based 2. Behaviour-based (Novelty Search) Methods 3. Hybrid (Objective + Behaviour) ρ = 0 . 5, equally combining fitness and novelty Fitness and Novelty score normalised before combination

  7. Two sets of Experiments: • Evolution Experiment • Fitness, Novelty and Hybrid to determine which performs the best in evolving vehicle driving behaviour. Experiments • Generalisation Test Experiments • Highest-performance evolved controllers were tested with various different configurations (including unseen configurations [vehicle pool sizes] and environments [tracks]) • Non-evolutionary, evaluation of evolved controllers.

  8. Simulation Environment • UnityNEAT • 3D hi-fidelity game engine • Vehicles • Modelled after pedestrian vehicle BMW M3 Experiments • Pooled in groups of 1, 3 and 5 • Task • 1 track for evolution with static and dynamic obstacles • 3 additional unseen tracks for evaluation experiments – each with static obstacles and varying altitude • Checkpoints placed equally spaced along track

  9. Vehicle configuration • 5 Pyramidal Sensors fanning out the front of vehicle • Each sensor input into Neural Network + bias, angle to next waypoint and current velocity

  10. Vehicle configuration • Hidden Layer (H1 in this diagram) • Output for steer and acceleration

  11. Vehicle • 1 vehicle • 3 vehicles Configuration • 5 vehicles

  12. Evolution Track

  13. Evaluation Track 1

  14. Evaluation Track 2

  15. Evaluation Track 3

  16. Results Evolution Results: Hybrid > Objective (Fitness) and Hybrid All Methods achieved > 60% task performance. Supports existing research that hybrid approach can improve task performance in this type of task

  17. Objective-based (fitness) Evolution Results Behaviour-based (novelty search) Search space exploration heatmaps for each method indicates: • O: 60% of all evolved controllers in range between 0.2 and 0.4 task performance for all generations • N: Wider spread of controller behavior – expected from novelty search since it’s a behavior maintenance technique, but low task performance overall. 80% within 0.0 and 0.3 task performance. • H: Even-spread of solutions, broader search space than both O and N, was able to achieve higher task Hybrid performance due to this.

  18. Results Evaluation Results: Objective (Fitness)-evolved controllers generalized the best Hybrid-evolved controllers generalized the worst

  19. Evaluation Results Visualization of fittest controllers by each method (O, N, H) helps explain hybrid’s high task-performance on evolution track but inability to generalize as well as O and N. Both O and N evolved higher neural complex controllers whereas Hybrid evolved reactive networks that performed well on the evolution track only.

  20. Thank you Please send questions to: allen@allenhuang.net / gnitschke@cs.uct.ac.za

Recommend


More recommend