Bridging the Reality Gap — A Dual Simulator Approach to the Evolution of Whole-Body Motion for the Nao Humanoid Robot

Malachy Eaton


We describe a novel approach to the evolution of whole-body behaviours in the Nao humanoid robot using a multi-simulator approach to the alleviation of the reality gap issue. The initial evolutionary process takes place in the V-REP simulator. Once a viable whole-body motion has been evolved, this evolved motion is subsequently transferred for testing onto another simulation platform – Webots. Only when the evolved kicking behaviour has been demonstrated to also be viable on the Webots platform is this behaviour then transferred onto the real Nao robot for testing. This eliminates the time-consuming process of transferring behaviours onto the real robot which have little chance of successfully crossing the reality gap, and also minimises the potential for damage to the real Nao robot and/or it’s environment. By using this novel approach of employing two different simulators, each with its own individual strengths and weaknesses, we reduce the likelihood that any individual behaviour will be able to exploit individual simulators’ weaknesses, as the other simulator should pick up on this weak point. Using this procedure we have successfully evolved ball kicking behaviour in simulation, which has transferred with reasonable fidelity onto to the real Nao humanoid.


  1. Boeing, A., 2009. Design of a Physics Abstraction Layer for Improving the Validity of Evolved Robot Control Simulations. Ph.D Dissertation, School of Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering, The University of Western Australia, WA, 2009.
  2. Boeing, A., and Bräunl, T., 2012. Leveraging multiple simulators for crossing the reality gap. In: Control Automation Robotics and Vision (ICARCV), 2012 12th International Conference on (pp. 1113-1119). IEEE.
  3. Bongard, J. C. , 2013. Evolutionary robotics. Communications of the ACM, 56(8), 74-83.
  4. Bongard, J. C., and Lipson, H., 2004. Once more unto the breach: Co-evolving a robot and its simulator. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems (ALIFE9) (pp. 57-62).
  5. Depinet, M., MacAlpine, P., & Stone, P. ,2014. Keyframe sampling, optimization, and behavior integration: Towards long-distance kicking in the robocup 3d simulation league. In RoboCup 2014: Robot World Cup XVIII (pp. 571-582). Springer International Publishing.
  6. Duarte, M., Oliveira, S., and Christensen, A. L., 2012. Automatic synthesis of controllers for real robots based on preprogrammed behaviors. In: From Animals to Animats 12 (pp. 249-258). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  7. Eaton, M., 2007. Evolutionary humanoid robotics: past, present and future, In: 50 Years of Artificial Intelligence: Essays Dedicated to the 50th Anniversary of Artificial Intelligence LNAI 4850, Springer, pp. 42- 53.
  8. Eaton, M., 2013. An Approach to the Synthesis of Humanoid Robot Dance Using Non-interactive Evolutionary Techniques. In: Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2013 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 3305-3309). IEEE.
  9. Eaton, M., 2015. Evolutionary Humanoid Robotics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  10. Farchy, A., Barrett, S., MacAlpine, P., and Stone, P., 2013. Humanoid robots learning to walk faster: From the real world to simulation and back. In: Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (pp. 39-46). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
  11. Floreano, D., and Urzelai, J., 2001. Evolution of plastic control networks. Autonomous robots, 11(3), 311-317.
  12. Freese, M.S., Singh, S, Ozaki, F, and Matsuhira N., 2010. Virtual robot experimentation platform v-rep: a versatile 3d robot simulator. In Simulation, Modeling, and Programming for Autonomous Robots, pages 51- 62. Springer, 2010.
  13. Gouaillier, D., Hugel, V., Blazevic, P., Kilner, C., Monceaux, J., Lafourcade, P., Mariner, B., Serre, J., and Maisonnier, B.,2009 . Mechatronic design of NAO humanoid. In: Robotics and Automation, 2009. ICR'09. IEEE International Conference on (pp. 769-774). IEEE.
  14. Iocchi, L., Libera, F. D., and Menegatti, E. , 2007. Learning Humanoid soccer actions interleaving simul ated and real data, in: Proc. of The Second Workshop on Humanoid Soccer Robots, IEEE-RAS 7th International Conference on Humanoid Robots, Pittsburgh, 2007
  15. Jakobi, N. , 1997b. Half-baked, ad-hoc and noisy: minimal simulations for evolutionary robotics. In: P. Husbands and I. Harvey, Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Artificial Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  16. Jakobi, N., 1997a. Evolutionary robotics and the radical envelope-of-noise hypothesis. Adaptive Behavior, 6(2), 325-368.
  17. Jouandeau, N., & Hugel, V. ,2014. Optimization of parametrised kicking motion for humanoid soccer player. In Autonomous Robot Systems and Competitions (ICARSC), 2014 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 241-246). IEEE.
  18. Kitano, H., and Asada, M.,1998. RoboCup humanoid challenge: That's one small step for a robot, one giant leap for mankind. In: Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1998. Proceedings, 1998 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 419-424). IEEE.
  19. Kitano, H., Asada, M., Kuniyoshi, Y., Noda, I., Osawai, E., and Matsubara, H., 1998. Robocup: A challenge problem for AI and robotics. In: RoboCup-97: Robot Soccer World Cup I (pp. 1-19). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  20. Koos, S., Mouret, J. B., and Doncieux, S..,2013. The transferability approach: Crossing the reality gap in evolutionary robotics. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on, 17(1), 122-145.
  21. Laue, T., and Hebbel, M., 2009. Automatic parameter optimization for a dynamic robot simulation. In: RoboCup 2008: Robot Soccer World Cup XII (pp. 121- 132). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  22. Li, X., Liang, Z., & Feng, H. ,2015. Kicking motion planning of Nao robots based on CMA-ES. In Control and Decision Conference (CCDC), 2015 27th Chinese (pp. 6158-6161). IEEE.
  23. Lipson, H., Bongard, J. C., Zykov, V., and Malone, E., 2006. Evolutionary Robotics for Legged Machines: From Simulation to Physical Reality. In: Arai, T. et al (eds.), Intelligent Autonomous Systems 9(IAS-9), pp.11-18.
  24. Michel, O., 2004. Webots: Professional Mobile Robot Simulation. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, Vol. 1, No. 1, 39-42.
  25. Nolfi, S., and Floreano, D.,2000. Evolutionary robotics. The biology, intelligence, and technology of selforganizing machines. MIT Press.
  26. Zagal, J. C., and Ruiz-Del-Solar, J., 2007. Combining simulation and reality in evolutionary robotics. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, 50(1), 19-39.
  27. Zagal, J. C., Ruiz-del-Solar, J., and Vallejos, P., 2004. Back to reality: Crossing the reality gap in evolutionary robotics. In: IAV 2004 the 5th IFAC Symposium on Intelligent Autonomous Vehicles, Lisbon, Portugal.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Eaton M. (2016). Bridging the Reality Gap — A Dual Simulator Approach to the Evolution of Whole-Body Motion for the Nao Humanoid Robot . In Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Computational Intelligence - Volume 1: ECTA, (IJCCI 2016) ISBN 978-989-758-201-1, pages 186-192. DOI: 10.5220/0006052301860192

in Bibtex Style

author={Malachy Eaton},
title={Bridging the Reality Gap — A Dual Simulator Approach to the Evolution of Whole-Body Motion for the Nao Humanoid Robot},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Computational Intelligence - Volume 1: ECTA, (IJCCI 2016)},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Computational Intelligence - Volume 1: ECTA, (IJCCI 2016)
TI - Bridging the Reality Gap — A Dual Simulator Approach to the Evolution of Whole-Body Motion for the Nao Humanoid Robot
SN - 978-989-758-201-1
AU - Eaton M.
PY - 2016
SP - 186
EP - 192
DO - 10.5220/0006052301860192