We present a comparative study of methods for generating realistic, constrained small- to medium-scale road networks with built-in redundancy. In this research, we evaluate the proposed Evolutionary Algorithm (EA) with connectivity and redundancy constraints against the Wave Function Collapse (WFC) method - commonly used in procedural terrain generation for games - and swarm algorithms: Particle Swarm (PSO) and Gray Wolf (GWO). Our focus is on producing realistic, redundant road networks suitable for vision, localization and navigation problems. We evaluate metrics: connectivity, cycles, intersections, dead ends, graph cut-edges while enforcing physical plausibility. We propose an EA and its extended version with elitism via MAP-Elites method. We detail the implementation, constraints, metrics and provide both visual and quantitative comparisons with baselines. Results highlight how fitness function design choices affect the structural characteristics of generated networks and highlight the impact of specific constraints in practical applications. Our contribution is a method for creating realistic synthetic datasets from sparse tile definitions derived from real-world data. We demonstrate a practical application by generating realistic maps using a laboratory-collected tileset from a Duckietown city model. Our approach performs coherent geometric transformations on metadata, in this work exemplified by semantic segmentation masks of the generated road networks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Elementary tile elements with associated semantic segmentation binary masks
Parameter
Value
Notes
Grid size
12×12
Tested across scales
Mutation rate
0.3
Table 2
Algorithm
Parameter
Value
PSO
Inertia weight
0.7
c1 (cognitive)
1.5
c2 (social)
1.5
Generations
200
Offspring
40
GWO
Generations
200
Table 3
Figure 2: Quantitative comparison of all models, according to metric definitions from section 2.2
CO
DE
CY
μ
σ
μ
σ
μ
σ
Method
EA
1.25
0.5
0.75
0.5
25
1.826
GWO
1
0
0.75
0.957
37.75
3.862
MAP-E
1.25
0.5
4.5
3.873
35.75
7.455
PSO
2.25
0.957
9.25
1.5
37
0.816
Table 1: Quantitative measures table 1 of 3, where: CO - connected components; DE - dangling (dead) ends; CY - cyclomatic complexity