Merging pruning and neuroevolution: towards robust and efficient controllers for modular soft robots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Artificial neural networks (ANNs) can be employed as controllers for robotic agents. Their structure is often complex, with many neurons and connections, especially when the robots have many sensors and actuators distributed across their bodies and/or when high expressive power is desirable. Pruning (removing neurons or connections) reduces the complexity of the ANN, thus increasing its energy efficiency, and has been reported to improve the generalization capability, in some cases. In addition, it is well-known that pruning in biological neural networks plays a fundamental role in the development of brains and their ability to learn. In this study, we consider the evolutionary optimization of neural controllers for the case study of Voxel-based soft robots, a kind of modular, bio-inspired soft robots, applying pruning during fitness evaluation. For a locomotion task, and for centralized as well as distributed controllers, we experimentally characterize the effect of different forms of pruning on after-pruning effectiveness, life-long effectiveness, adaptability to new terrains, and behavior. We find that incorporating some forms of pruning in neuroevolution leads to almost equally effective controllers as those evolved without pruning, with the benefit of higher robustness to pruning. We also observe occasional improvements in generalization ability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".