Informed search algorithms

Chapter 3
(Based on Slides by Stuart Russell,
Richard Korf and UW-AI faculty)
 Informed (Heuristic) Search

Idea: be smart
about what paths
to try.

2
 Blind Search vs. Informed Search
• What’s the difference?

• How do we formally specify this?

A node is selected for expansion based on an
evaluation function that estimates cost to goal.

3
 General Tree Search Paradigm
function tree-search(root-node)
fringe  successors(root-node)
while ( notempty(fringe) )
{node  remove-first(fringe)
state  state(node)
if goal-test(state) return solution(node)
fringe  insert-all(successors(node),fringe) }
return failure
end tree-search

4
 General Graph Search Paradigm
function tree-search(root-node)
fringe  successors(root-node)
explored  empty
while ( notempty(fringe) )
{node  remove-first(fringe)
state  state(node)
if goal-test(state) return solution(node)
fringe  insert-all(successors(node),fringe, if node not in explored)
explored  insert(node,explored)
}
return failure
end tree-search

5
 Best-First Search
• Use an evaluation function f(n) for node n.
• Always choose the node from fringe that has
the lowest f value.

3 5 1

4 6

6
 Best-first search
• A search strategy is defined by picking the order of node
expansion
• Idea: use an evaluation function f(n) for each node
– estimate of "desirability“

 Expand most desirable unexpanded node

• Implementation:
Order the nodes in fringe in decreasing order of desirability

• Special cases:
– greedy best-first search
– A* search
Romania with step costs in km
 Greedy best-first search
• Evaluation function f(n) = h(n) (heuristic)
= estimate of cost from n to goal

• e.g., hSLD(n) = straight-line distance from n to

Bucharest

• Greedy best-first search expands the node

that appears to be closest to goal
 Properties of greedy best-first search
• Complete?
• No – can get stuck in loops, e.g., Iasi  Neamt  Iasi 
Neamt 
• Time?
• O(bm), but a good heuristic can give dramatic
improvement
• Space?
• O(bm) -- keeps all nodes in memory
• Optimal?
• No
 A* search
• Idea: avoid expanding paths that are already
expensive
• Evaluation function f(n) = g(n) + h(n)

• g(n) = cost so far to reach n

• h(n) = estimated cost from n to goal
• f(n) = estimated total cost of path through n to
goal
A* for Romanian Shortest Path

12
13
14
15
16
17
 Admissible heuristics
• A heuristic h(n) is admissible if for every node n,
h(n) ≤ h*(n), where h*(n) is the true cost to reach the goal state from
n.

• An admissible heuristic never overestimates the cost to reach the

goal, i.e., it is optimistic

• Example: hSLD(n) (never overestimates the actual road distance)

• Theorem: If h(n) is admissible, A* using TREE-SEARCH is optimal

 Consistent Heuristics
• h(n) is consistent if
– for every node n
– for every successor n´ due to legal action a
– h(n) <= c(n,a,n´) + h(n´)
n
h(n)
c(n,a,n´)
h(n´)
n´ G

• Every consistent heuristic is also admissible.

• Theorem: If h(n) is consistent, A* using GRAPH-
SEARCH is optimal
19
 Properties of A*
• Complete?
Yes (unless there are infinitely many nodes with f ≤ f(G) )

• Time? Exponential

• Space? Keeps all nodes in memory

• Optimal?
Yes (depending upon search algo and heuristic property)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huJEgJ82360
 Admissible heuristics
E.g., for the 8-puzzle:

• h1(n) = number of misplaced tiles

• h2(n) = total Manhattan distance
(i.e., no. of squares from desired location of each tile)

• h1(S) = ?
• h2(S) = ?
 Admissible heuristics
E.g., for the 8-puzzle:

• h1(n) = number of misplaced tiles

• h2(n) = total Manhattan distance
(i.e., no. of squares from desired location of each tile)

• h1(S) = ? 8
• h2(S) = ? 3+1+2+2+2+3+3+2 = 18
 Dominance
• If h2(n) ≥ h1(n) for all n (both admissible)
then h2 dominates h1
• h2 is better for search

• Typical search costs (average number of node expanded):

• d=12 IDS = 3,644,035 nodes

*
A (h1) = 227 nodes
A*(h2) = 73 nodes
• d=24 IDS = too many nodes
A*(h1) = 39,135 nodes
A*(h2) = 1,641 nodes
 Relaxed problems
• A problem with fewer restrictions on the actions is called a
relaxed problem

• The cost of an optimal solution to a relaxed problem is an

admissible heuristic for the original problem

• If the rules of the 8-puzzle are relaxed so that a tile can move
anywhere, then h1(n) gives the shortest solution

• If the rules are relaxed so that a tile can move to any adjacent
square, then h2(n) gives the shortest solution
 Memory Problem?
• Iterative deepening A*
– Similar to ID search
 Non-optimal variations
• Use more informative, but inadmissible
heuristics

• Weighted A*
– f(n) = g(n)+ w.h(n) where w>1
– Typically w=5.
– Solution quality bounded by w for admissible h
 Sizes of Problem Spaces

Brute-Force Search Time (10 million

Problem Nodes
nodes/second)

• 8 Puzzle: 105 .01 seconds

• 23 Rubik’s Cube: 106 .2 seconds
• 15 Puzzle: 1013 6 days
• 33 Rubik’s Cube: 1019 68,000 years
• 24 Puzzle: 1025 12 billion years
 Performance of IDA* on 15 Puzzle
• Random 15 puzzle instances were first solved
optimally using IDA* with Manhattan distance
heuristic (Korf, 1985).
• Optimal solution lengths average 53 moves.
• 400 million nodes generated on average.
• Average solution time is about 50 seconds on
current machines.
 Limitation of Manhattan Distance
• To solve a 24-Puzzle instance, IDA* with
Manhattan distance would take about 65,000
years on average.
• Assumes that each tile moves independently
• In fact, tiles interfere with each other.
• Accounting for these interactions is the key to
more accurate heuristic functions.
 Example: Linear Conflict

3 1 1 3

Manhattan distance is 2+2=4 moves

Example: Linear Conflict

3 1 1 3

Manhattan distance is 2+2=4 moves

Example: Linear Conflict

3 1 3
1

Manhattan distance is 2+2=4 moves

Example: Linear Conflict

3 1 3
1

Manhattan distance is 2+2=4 moves

Example: Linear Conflict

3 1 3
1

Manhattan distance is 2+2=4 moves

Example: Linear Conflict

1 3 1 3

Manhattan distance is 2+2=4 moves

Example: Linear Conflict

1 3 1 3

Manhattan distance is 2+2=4 moves, but linear conflict adds 2

additional moves.
 Linear Conflict Heuristic
• Hansson, Mayer, and Yung, 1991
• Given two tiles in their goal row, but reversed
in position, additional vertical moves can be
added to Manhattan distance.
• Still not accurate enough to solve 24-Puzzle
• We can generalize this idea further.
 More Complex Tile Interactions
14 7 3
3 7 M.d. is 19 moves, but 31 moves are
15 12 11 needed.
11 13 12 13 14 15

7 13 3
12 7 M.d. is 20 moves, but 28 moves are
15 3 11 needed
11 14 12 13 14 15

12 11 3
7 14 7 M.d. is 17 moves, but 27 moves are
13 3 11 needed
15 12 13 14 15
 Pattern Database Heuristics
• Culberson and Schaeffer, 1996
• A pattern database is a complete set of such
positions, with associated number of moves.
• e.g. a 7-tile pattern database for the Fifteen
Puzzle contains 519 million entries.
Heuristics from Pattern Databases

5 10 14 7 1 2 3

8 3 6 1 4 5 6 7

15 12 9 8 9 10 11

2 11 4 13 12 13 14 15

31 moves is a lower bound on the total number of moves needed to solve

this particular state.
 Combining Multiple Databases

5 10 14 7 1 2 3

8 3 6 1 4 5 6 7

15 12 9 8 9 10 11

2 11 4 13 12 13 14 15

31 moves needed to solve red tiles

22 moves need to solve blue tiles

Overall heuristic is maximum of 31 moves

 Additive Pattern Databases
• Culberson and Schaeffer counted all moves
needed to correctly position the pattern tiles.
• In contrast, we count only moves of the
pattern tiles, ignoring non-pattern moves.
• If no tile belongs to more than one pattern,
then we can add their heuristic values.
• Manhattan distance is a special case of this,
where each pattern contains a single tile.
 Example Additive Databases

1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13 15 14
The 7-tile database contains 58 million entries. The 8-tile database contains
519 million entries.
 Computing the Heuristic

5 10 14 7 1 2 3

8 3 6 1 4 5 6 7

15 12 9 8 9 10 11

2 11 4 13 12 13 14 15

20 moves needed to solve red tiles

25 moves needed to solve blue tiles

Overall heuristic is sum, or 20+25=45 moves

 Performance on 15 Puzzle
• IDA* with a heuristic based on these additive
pattern databases can optimally solve random
15 puzzle instances in less than 29
milliseconds on average.
• This is about 1700 times faster than with
Manhattan distance on the same machine.
 Assignment 1
• Flashlight Problem
• Do not use pattern database heuristics