A Survey of Nature Inspired Optimization
Algorithms Applied to Cooperative Strategies in
Robot Soccer
Asma S. Larik
Artificial Intelligence Lab, Faculty of Computer Science,
Institute of Business Administration, Garden Road, Karachi-
74400, Pakistan
asma.sanam@khi.iba.edu.pk
Abstract— Nature inspired optimization algorithms are
known for their inherent ability to solve complex problems where
multiple agents interact to perform a task at hand. This paper
presents a survey of how these optimization algorithms have been
applied in determining cooperative strategies for a team of soccer
playing agents. The survey discusses the contributions made by
researchers and makes an effort to map nature inspired
optimization algorithms with the type of cooperative strategy
evolved. A categorization of cooperative study is also presented
specifically in the domain of RoboCup Soccer Simulation League
where agents cooperate in a virtual environment to develop a
strategy without any issue of physical wear and tear. This study
would serve as a starting point for teams participating in
RoboCup competitions to enhance their strategy utilizing ideas
from nature inspired algorithms.
Keywords— RoboCup Soccer, optimization, nature inspired,
strategy, evolutionary approach, swarm approach
I. INTRODUCTION
Nature is full of instances where flock of birds, group of ants,
set of honey bees’ etc. exhibit cooperative strategies to
execute their daily tasks. Humans have taken ideas from
nature to solve their real life problems where cooperation is
the key to success. These meta-heuristics[1] have made
significant progress in various domains [2] and have proven to
be successful in finding an optimal solution. Robot Soccer is
one of the many application fields where nature inspired
algorithms have been applied successfully. This survey
focuses on RoboCup Soccer Simulation Leagues[3] that is
organized under the umbrella of RoboCup competitions [4]. In
these leagues, a group of agents cooperates in an adversarial
environment.
The term cooperative strategy also varies from scenario to
scenario and depends on the context in which it has been
applied. In some studies [5]–[8], strategy denotes learning a
set of low level behaviors exhibits by each agent while in the
other strategy takes the form of high level roles[9]–[14] that
are associated with agents in the field. The main contributions
of this paper are as follows. (1) A categorization of nature
inspired algorithms, (2) discussion of some seminal works and
recent researches in the domain, (3) a categorization of
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Petrosani. Downloaded on January 18,2024 at 07:51:45 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Sajjad Haider
Artificial Intelligence Lab, Faculty of Computer Science,
Institute of Business Administration, Garden Road, Karachi-
74400, Pakistan
sajjad.haider@khi.iba.edu.pk
cooperative strategies in the context of robot soccer and (4) a
mapping of the applications of nature-inspired optimization
algorithms for evolving cooperative strategies in the domain
of RoboCup simulation leagues.
The organization of paper is as follows: Section2
provides a brief technical background of the design and
classification of various nature inspired optimization
algorithms while Section 3 provides a brief overview of the
domain of RoboCup. The types of cooperative strategy
deployed in RoboCup Soccer domain is discussed in Section 4.
Section 5 presents a comprehensive study of the mapping of
approaches proposed in literature along with their limitations.
Lastly, Section number 6 concludes the paper along with
providing future research directions.
II. NATURE-INSPIRED OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHMS AND THEIR
CATEGORIZATIONS
Nature-inspired optimization algorithms come under the
umbrella of computational intelligence [15]. A broader
categorization is given in Fig 1.
Fig.1. Categorization of Nature inspired Algorithms
It is a family of algorithms that uses iterative approach over a
set of population, guided by heuristic and use trial and error
methods to optimize a given problem. They are further
categorized into various classes based on the model, problem
representation and implementation consideration.
Evolutionary Algorithms [16] are based on the theory of
evolution which defines how species adapted over time to
survive in the environment. In evolutionary algorithms, a
population of individuals is used to find a solution for a given
problem. Each individual has a number of genes that represent
a possible solution. Then, from the current population,
offspring are created using mutation and crossover. Mutation
adds noise to the genes of an individual which modifies it.
Crossover combines the genes of two individuals. The fitness
of each individual is calculated by a fitness function.
According to different authors, Evolutionary Strategy,
Genetic Programming and Genetic Algorithm are all the
examples of algorithms that use the biological mechanism
from population to survival. The difference between each of
them lies in their implementation [17].
Swarm Intelligence [1] is the collective and unsupervised
behavior of animals that interact with each other as well as the
environment. There are numerous swarm-intelligence based
algorithms namely Ant Colony Optimization [18], Particle
Swarm Optimization [19], Bee Colony Algorithm[1],
Bacterial Foraging Algorithm [1], Firefly algorithm[1] etc. In
the context of robot soccer, we would discuss two of them
namely PSO and ACO that have been used for learning
cooperative strategies. PSO imitates the behavior of a flock of
birds searching for food [19]. For each particle (bird), a record
is kept of its position, velocity, and the best position found so
far, and the overall best position among the flock. Instead of
using evolutionary operators of mutation and crossover, the
velocity of each particle is adjusted according to its own flying
experience and the other particles’ flying experience. ACO is
widely used by computer scientists to solve path problem and
it basically models the foraging behavior of ants.
Cultural Algorithms[20] is a class of algorithms derived
from the cultural evolution process in nature. The significant
feature of this algorithm is that it has a knowledge component
other than the population that is known as the belief space.
Actions are performed by individuals in the population space
and each individual in the population is evaluated using the
objective function. After individual’s fitness values are scored,
an acceptable function is used to determine which of these
individuals should update the belief space. The experiences of
these accepted individuals will then be added to the belief
space contents.
Artificial Immune System [21] is the subfield of nature
inspired optimization algorithms motivated by immunology.
They mimic the adaptive nature of biological immune
functions. Their ability to adapt to varying pathogens makes
such systems a suitable choice for various robotic applications
but they are not a part of this study.
III. ROBOCUP SOCCER DOMAIN
RoboCup Soccer [22] is a scientific venture that serves as an
exciting platform for the advancement of research in artificial
intelligence as well as robotics. The competition has a goal
that, by the middle of the 21st century, a team of robots would
defeat a team of humans in soccer. This competition is held
every year, and several leagues have been designed to cater for
different problems and challenges in robot coordination,
locomotion, etc. There are two simulation leagues in this event
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Petrosani. Downloaded on January 18,2024 at 07:51:45 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
which do not involve physical robots and instead simulated
robots play soccer located in the virtual field. In the simulation
2D league, the ball and the players are represented by circles
on the plane of soccer field, while in the simulation 3D
League, the players are represented as articulated, rigid bodies
having 22 hinges. In 2D league, commands such as move,
dash, turn and kick are available, however, in 3D these
commands do not exist and locomotion is a big challenge
there. Fig. 2 depicts the images of 2D and 3D leagues starting
from left to right respectively.
Fig.2. Two teams playing
RoboCup Soccer Simulation
2D league and 3D league
IV. COOPERATIVE STRATEGIES IN ROBOCUP SOCCER
AND THEIR CATEGORIZATION
There have been numerous studies on the application of nature
inspired optimization algorithms in RoboCup Soccer for
motion control including walk or kick optimization [23]–[25]
and path planning problems[26], [27]. However, there is a
growing trend of its application at the level of strategy
building[5], [6], [12], [13], [28]–[30]. The novelty of this
survey is a discussion of techniques that are applying nature
inspired algorithms to build coordination among a team of
agents. This coordination is actually the cooperative strategy
employed by teams. In some cases, cooperative strategy is the
high level decision to shoot the ball, kick the ball or pass the
ball to a team mate while others treat it is a set of low-level
points each player needs to approach. Thus there is no
consensus on a single definition and the notion of strategy
varies significantly from one application to another. In Fig.3
we propose a loosely coupled classification of cooperative
strategy based on the literature survey.
Fig.3. Categorization of Cooperative Strategy
A. Strategy governed by a centralized coach
In this approach strategy is the particular region where an
agent needs to be at a particular time instance[5], [30]. This
strategy is communicated by a coach agent that sends the
respective message to all the agents in the field and only the
intended one executes the action. This approach has the
limitation of developing a coach agent as well as the extra
communication overhead involved. Also, the approach
imposes the division of the entire field into sub regions and
computation of low-level points for each agent.
B. STRATEGY AS TEAM FORMATION (STF)
a strategy based on team formation denotes the placement of
agents other than the goal keeper in the field[6], [28]. this
formation can be either attacking or defensive depending upon
the scenario faced. a formation like 4-3-3 denotes an attacking
formation in which there are four defenders, three players in
the middle of the field and three attacking players while a
formation 4-5-1 is a very defensive formation in which only a
single player attacks. The limitations of these approaches are
the decision of switching formation from one case to another
and its frequency.
C. STRATEGY AS A SET OF HIGH LEVEL ROLES (SHR)
This is a distributed approach where strategy denotes
assigning roles to agents in the field [29]. These roles are
computed depending upon the position of the ball in the field.
The player closest to the ball becomes the attack leading
player and all the others take up their positions with respect to
that particular player. These roles are dynamic and allocated
via algorithm proposed by P. Stone and M.Veloso [14]. The
bottleneck of this approach is that each player has a role that
needs to be communicated in a timely manner. Secondly, this
role switching needs to be controlled as frequent switching
could lead to a chaotic situation in the field.
D. STRATEGY AS A SET OF HIGH LEVEL BEHAVIORS (SHB)
In this category, a cooperative strategy is considered as a
set of high level behaviors exhibited by agents in the field.
They include shooting the ball, passing the ball or dribbling
along with the ball etc.
Some approaches [13] have taken strategy as only the
success on a good pass execution by one player to its team
mate. They have trained the agents to exhibit set of passes in
different scenarios and concluded that this is critical for team
success. The limitations of this approach are that the pass
prediction is affected by noise in the simulated environment
and in most of the cases a shot to goal can be more fruitful as
compared to a pass.
In more recent studies proposed by Chen et al. [12] ,
behavior selection is made by learning shooting model,
passing model and dribbling model separately by nature
inspired algorithm. This approach has the advantage that it is
robust and real time strategy execution is performed
instantaneously utilizing the parameters available.
V. LITERATURE REVIEW MAPPING NATURE-INSPIRED
OPTIMIZATION CATEGORIZATION TO COOPERATIVE
STRATEGIES
This section gives a comprehensive literature review of the
studies in light of the above categorization of cooperative
strategies and nature inspired model.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Petrosani. Downloaded on January 18,2024 at 07:51:45 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
A. EVOLVING COOPERATIVE STRATEGIES VIA EVOLUTIONARY
ALGORITHMS
T. Nakashima et al. [5], [31] proposed the use of Genetic
Algorithms to learn a team strategy in the domain of 2D
simulation league. They divided the field into 48 sub-regions
and the 10 players of both the teams excluding the goalkeeper
could exist in any of the regions. The basic code comprised of
two action modes the ball handling mode and the positioning
mode. If the player was near the ball then the ball handling
mode was invoked else vice versa. They created a repository
of action rules and these action rules represented the strategy.
The action rules were defined as:
Rj: If agent in area Aj and the nearest opponent is Bj then
the action is Cj j=1,…,N
where Rj denoted the rule index,
Aj was the index of area,
Bj was index of opponent,
Cj was the consequent action and
N was total action rules.
The chromosome comprised of the action to be executed in a
certain situation and the action was propagated via a
centralized coach agent. The fitness of strategy was computed
by running simulated matches and taking average goal
difference. They learnt strategy against a single fixed
opponent.
M. Lekavy [13] applied evolutionary algorithm for evolving
passes in 2D simulation league. The chromosome denoted
sequence of actions that need to be carried out as a reaction to
some standard situation by a single player. The sequence of
actions was passes to teammates. The chromosome comprised
of three parts namely number of player to pass to, offset of the
pass and activity time. Only the passes were controlled by the
chromosome. When the agent did not have the ball, it reacted
according to the default logic. For population, they used two
approaches: Classical evolutionary; and Co-evolutionary. In
the first approach, each individual had 11 chromosomes - one
for each agent. Each individual was evaluated as a whole. In
the latter approach, one individual was equal to one
chromosome. New individuals were created by copying a
randomly selected parent and mutating it. For standard
evolutionary approach, one individual was selected from the
population and the game was played for 45 cycles. For co-
evolutionary approach, one individual from each of 11
populations was selected which jointly represents a game
strategy. For fitness evaluation the function was combination
of the number of cycles for which the team controlled the ball
and the distance between the opponent goal and the last ball
position. Each strategy was evaluated twice and final fitness
was the minimum of the two. Experiments with learning
strategies were carried out against a single fixed opponent.
B. Evolving cooperative strategies via swarm algorithms
H.Okada et al. [6] utilized Particle Swarm Optimization to
evolve team formation in the domain of RoboCup Soccer
Simulation 2D league. Cartesian coordinates of the ten players
and 15 possible positions of the ball were modeled as elements
of an individual solution. The initial population was randomly
generated for each N particle.
The authors used both the single-objective and two-objective
PSO. In the first one, the fitness function was the total number
of goals scored (or faced). In the latter, the two objectives
were to score more and face fewer goals. The results reported
how well formations for various team performances (e.g.,
offensive, defensive, balanced) could automatically be
obtained. The offensive formation of the teams was improved
utilizing two-objective PSO.
Geetha et al. [28] presented the idea of mapping ant
behavior such as nest protecting and pheromone foraging for
generating team strategies in Robot Soccer. The tendency of
nest protecting behavior exhibited by ants was applied to
strategy of goal keeper while the pheromone following
technique was used as an indirect signaling for cooperation
among group of players. A player who moves towards the ball
lays pheromone for its neighboring players to take relative
positions thus maximizing the chances to score a goal. The
authors developed an evolved team namely PUTeam using a
java based application TeamBots. Experiments were
conducted by executing matches of PUTeam against 20 other
teams. The results demonstrated that the evolved team was
successful in winning 16 matches out of 20 matches played.
The strategy learnt was the formation of team at a particular
time instance.
Multi-group Ant Colony Optimization algorithm was
proposed by Chen et al. [12] that used ant intelligence to learn
offensive strategies in 2D soccer simulation league.
In this paper they created three models namely shooting
model, passing model and dribbling model. In order to deal
with continuous data they divided the field into regions and
used the success of foraging behavior of ants as an effective
cooperative strategy. The mechanism of pheromone
evaporation was used to count the preference value of each
attack in a tree structure namely Attack Information Tree. The
decision module of the attacker then selected the best attack
action according to the preference value. The learning process
starts when an agent receives a set of scene information and
translates this information into equivalent states. The agent
then searches the dataset of the state-action preference values,
selecting an action that has the most similar state and the
highest preference value. Finally the agent makes the selected
action, evaluates the result of the action after a given time and
sends the result to the training data set as a new sample. They
simulated the attack environment by considering two
attackers, two defenders and one goal keeper in the field. The
positions of all the five players were set randomly and the
training was conducted till 15000 times in a single match. For
evaluation of proposed strategy matches were conducted
amongst the baseline team and the evolved team concluding
that the evolved MACO team enjoyed a 100% winning
advantage. Experiments were also conducted to evaluate this
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Petrosani. Downloaded on January 18,2024 at 07:51:45 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
new technique with existing value based and reinforcement
learning based techniques. The results demonstrated the proof
of concept that the evolved team performed better.
C. Evolving cooperative strategies via cultural algorithms
Cultural Algorithms (CA) were applied by Salhieh et al. [30]
in 2D league to find the best action to executed depending
upon the position of agent in the field and its relation to the
nearest opponent. A chromosome contained the action of each
agent in the region that represented an action rule. The
strategy learnt was the action rule that contained two choices
of when to dribble the ball and when to pass the ball to the
teammate. This was a centralized approach where a coach
agent was developed that sent messages to all the agents and
only the intended agent executed the action. Goal difference
was used as the evaluation function. The authors claimed
improvement during the first five generations. The simulated
results also showed enhancements in terms of goals scored.
M. Ali et al. [29] contributed the use of simplified and
adaptive version of CA to develop defensive and offensive
plays in simulated robot soccer. The agents were able to
develop the most suitable team formation by utilizing a set of
finite state machines (FSM ) in the field. The number of goals
scored was used for fitness. They used evolutionary
programming to model the solution space. For each individual
in the population they defined a set of actions and a set of
regions. At the start of CA all the individuals were initialized
randomly. The goal was to train the team to choose the best
states depending upon the scenario faced. In case of offense,
different regions dictated the role the player would acquire
that consequently led to a particular state of the player. The
belief space comprised of general behaviors associated with
overall plan of the team. Experiments were conducted to test
the effectiveness of the approach for 150 generations. After
every 15 generations some statistics were computed that
indicated the best regions and the best states. These were
recorded to be used for future generations to serve as a starting
point for online team coordination. Learning was carried out
in two stages in which the output of first stage became the
input of the second one and ten runs of 150 generation each
were conducted. For performance evaluation matches were
executed with multiple opponent teams that either played
offensively or defensively and the team that used CA played
better in terms of defense as well as offense. Table 1 presents
a comparison of all the approaches.
Table 1. Comparison of evolved cooperative strategies

Review Paper Strategy Learnt Fitness Opponent Strategy Type

1.T. Nakashima[5] Action Rules Average goals Single Centralized

2.M. Lekavy[13] Pass model Composite Single SHB
3 H.Okada[6] Team formation Goals scored /faced Single STF
4.Geetha et al.[28] Team formation Goals scored Multiple STF
5.Chen at al. Pass Model, Shoot Model, Preference value Multiple STB
Kick Model
6.Salhieh et al. Dribble/ Pass Goal difference Single Centralized
7.M.Ali Team formation Goals scored Multiple SHR

VI. CONCLUSION [3] “RoboCup 3D Soccer Simulation League,” Wikipedia, the

This paper presented a survey of various applications of nature
inspired optimization algorithms in devising cooperative
strategy. Three categories of optimization algorithms namely
algorithms inspired by evolution process, algorithms inspired
by swarm and algorithms inspired by cultural evolution have
been discussed. Recently, many works have been reported on
designing cooperative strategy in the domain of RoboCup
Soccer Simulation League. This survey specifically focused
on the seminal literature that discussed the issue of strategy
evolution. The paper contributed a categorization of
cooperative strategy that has been done based on centralized
vs. distributed strategy. Moreover, a comparative study of
different nature inspired models in each category along with
their limitations was discussed. This study is novel as it has
not been conducted so far to the best of our knowledge and
could serve as a benchmark for teams to develop their strategy
based upon the discussed categorization. This survey also
proposes some future research directions in cooperative
strategy evolution. Many approaches have discussed strategy
at the level of team formation rather than at the level of
behavior models and this area needs to be explored. Secondly,
the survey shows that most of the teams have evolved strategy
under some basic assumptions such as taking a fixed opponent
or taking a small size of teams; optimal strategy evolution for
large team of agents, thus, is still a challenging task. Lastly,
although we presented simulated leagues as a whole, the
domain of 2D league is simpler and much work has been done
in that domain. However, to the best of our knowledge there is
no application of nature inspired model for evolving
cooperative strategy in the domain of 3D Simulation league.
Thus, there is a growing need to develop cooperative strategy
for 3D league that caters to the issues of humanoid locomotion
as well as localization along with strategy evolution.
REFERENCES
[1] X.-S. Yang, “Nature-Inspired Optimization Algorithms,” in
Nature-Inspired Optimization Algorithms, Oxford: Elsevier, 2014, p.
iii.
[2] R. K. Arora, “Optimization: Algorithms and Applications,”
CRC Press, 06-May-2015. [Online]. Available:
https://www.crcpress.com/Optimization-Algorithms-and-
Applications/Arora/p/book/9781498721127. [Accessed: 29-Dec-
2016].
free encyclopedia. 09-Aug-2016.
[4] M. A. D. Darab and M. Ebrahimi, “RoboCup 3D Soccer
Simulation Server: A Progressing Testbed for AI Researchers,” in
Applications and Innovations in Intelligent Systems XIV, R. E. Bs.
MSc, D. T. Allen, and D. A. T. M. MBCS MSc, Eds. Springer
London, 2007, pp. 228–232.
[5] T. Nakashima, M. Takatani, M. Udo, and H. Ishibuchi, “An
evolutionary approach for strategy learning in RoboCup soccer,” in
2004 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics, 2004, vol. 2, pp. 2023–2028 vol.2.
[6] H. Okada, T. Wada, and A. Yamashita, “Evolving Robocup
Soccer Player formations by particle swarm optimization,” in 2011
Proceedings of SICE Annual Conference (SICE), 2011, pp. 1950–
1953.
[7] V. Svatoň, J. Martinovič, K. Slaninová, and V. Snášel,
“Improving Rule Selection from Robot Soccer Strategy with
Substrategies,” in Computer Information Systems and Industrial
Management, K. Saeed and V. Snášel, Eds. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, 2014, pp. 77–88.
[8] R. P. Sałustowicz, M. A. Wiering, and J. Schmidhuber,
“Learning Team Strategies: Soccer Case Studies,” Mach. Learn., vol.
33, no. 2–3, pp. 263–282, Nov. 1998.
[9] K. Yasui, K. Kobayashi, K. Murakami, and T. Naruse,
“Analyzing and Learning an Opponent’s Strategies in the RoboCup
Small Size League,” in RoboCup 2013: Robot World Cup XVII, S.
Behnke, M. Veloso, A. Visser, and R. Xiong, Eds. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 159–170.
[10] G. c Luh, C. y Wu, and W. w Liu, “Artificial Immune
System based Cooperative Strategies for Robot Soccer Competition,”
in 2006 International Forum on Strategic Technology, 2006, pp. 76–
79.
[11] C. H. Messom and M. G. Walker, “Evolving cooperative
robotic behaviour using distributed genetic programming,” in 7th
International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and
Vision, 2002. ICARCV 2002, 2002, vol. 1, pp. 215–219 vol.1.
[12] S. Chen, G. Lv, and X. Wang, “Offensive Strategy in the
2D Soccer Simulation League Using Multi-group Ant Colony
Optimization,” Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst., vol. 13, p. 1, Feb. 2016.
[13] M. Lekavy, “Optimising Multi-agent cooperation using
Evolutionary Algorithm,” in Proceedings of IIT, Bratislava, 2011,
pp. 49–56.
[14] P. Stone and M. Veloso, “Task Decomposition, Dynamic
Role Assignment, and Low-bandwidth Communication for Real-time
Strategic Teamwork,” Artif Intell, vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 241–273, Jun.
1999.
[15] A. Atyabi and S. Nefti-Meziani, Applications of
Computational Intelligence to Robotics and Autonomous Systems.
2016.

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Petrosani. Downloaded on January 18,2024 at 07:51:45 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[16] T. Bäck, Evolutionary Algorithms in Theory and Practice:
Evolution Strategies, Evolutionary Programming, Genetic
Algorithms. Oxford University Press, 1996.
[17] “Wiley: Computational Intelligence: An Introduction, 2nd
Edition - Andries P. Engelbrecht.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-
0470035617.html. [Accessed: 29-Dec-2016].
[18] M. Dorigo and T. Stutzle, “Ant Colony Optimization,” MIT
Press. [Online]. Available: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/ant-
colony-optimization. [Accessed: 29-Dec-2016].
[19] J. Brownlee, “Particle Swarm Optimization - Clever
Algorithms: Nature-Inspired Programming Recipes.” [Online].
Available: http://www.cleveralgorithms.com/nature-
inspired/swarm/pso.html. [Accessed: 29-Dec-2016].
[20] R. G. Reynolds and B. Peng, “Cultural algorithms:
modeling of how cultures learn to solve problems,” in 16th IEEE
International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, 2004,
pp. 166–172.
[21] J. Brownlee, “Immune Algorithms - Clever Algorithms:
Nature-Inspired Programming Recipes.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.cleveralgorithms.com/nature-inspired/immune.html.
[Accessed: 12-May-2017].
[22] H. Kitano et al., “The RoboCup synthetic agent challenge
97,” in RoboCup-97: Robot Soccer World Cup I, H. Kitano, Ed.
Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1998, pp. 62–73.
[23] T. Uchitane and T. Hatanaka, “Applying evolution
strategies for biped locomotion learning in RoboCup 3D Soccer
Simulation,” in 2011 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation
(CEC), 2011, pp. 179–185.
[24] P. MacAlpine, S. Barrett, D. Urieli, V. Vu, and P. Stone,
“Design and Optimization of an Omnidirectional Humanoid Walk: A
Winning Approach at the RoboCup 2011 3D Simulation
Competition.,” in AAAI, 2012.
[25] S. Haider, S. R. Abidi, and M. Williams, “On evolving a
dynamic bipedal walk using Partial Fourier Series,” in 2012 IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO),
2012, pp. 8–13.
[26] Y. Xiang, L. Zhiwei, W. Zhipeng, and C. Xuanyu,
“Dynamic path planning in RoboCup rescue simulation competition,”
in Control and Decision Conference (CCDC), 2015 27th Chinese,
2015, pp. 4341–4344.
[27] H. Burchardt and R. Salomon, “Implementation of Path
Planning using Genetic Algorithms on Mobile Robots,” in IEEE
Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2006. CEC 2006, 2006, pp.
1831–1836.
[28] R. Geetha, R. Subramanian, and P. Viswanath, “Genetic
Programming Method of Evolving the Robotic Soccer Player
Strategies with Ant Intelligence,” Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst., p. 1, 2009.
[29] M. Z. Ali, A. Morghem, J. Albadarneh, R. Al-Gharaibeh, P.
N. Suganthan, and R. G. Reynolds, “Cultural Algorithms applied to
the evolution of robotic soccer team tactics: A novel perspective,” in
2014 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), 2014, pp.
2180–2187.
[30] A. Salhieh, A. Mostafa, I. Mahmoud, and R. Reynolds,
“Evolving Effective Multi-Robot Coordination Strategies for
Dynamic Environments Using Cultural Algorithms,” in Proceedings
of the 12th WSEAS Internaional Conference on System Theory and
Scientific Computation, Istanbul, Turkey, 2012.
[31] T. Nakashima, M. Takatani, H. Ishibuchi, and M. Nii, “The
Effect of Using Match History on the Evolution of RoboCup Soccer
Team Strategies,” in 2006 IEEE Symposium on Computational
Intelligence and Games, 2006, pp. 60–66.

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Petrosani. Downloaded on January 18,2024 at 07:51:45 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.