Scribd
Upload
40 views28 pages

Artificial Intelligence: CS482, CS682, MW 1 - 2:15, SEM 201, MS 227 Prerequisites: 302, 365 Instructor: Sushil Louis

This document discusses various challenges in artificial intelligence search including non-determinism in actions and partial observability, and algorithms for handling these issues such as AND-OR search trees and searching over belief states. It provides examples of applying these techniques to problems like sensor-less vacuum worlds and slippery vacuum worlds with non-deterministic actions. The document also covers online search which interleaves computation and execution for dynamic or non-deterministic domains.

Uploaded by

Nitheesh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
40 views28 pages

Artificial Intelligence: CS482, CS682, MW 1 - 2:15, SEM 201, MS 227 Prerequisites: 302, 365 Instructor: Sushil Louis

This document discusses various challenges in artificial intelligence search including non-determinism in actions and partial observability, and algorithms for handling these issues such as AND-OR search trees and searching over belief states. It provides examples of applying these techniques to problems like sensor-less vacuum worlds and slippery vacuum worlds with non-deterministic actions. The document also covers online search which interleaves computation and execution for dynamic or non-deterministic domains.

Uploaded by

Nitheesh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 28

Artificial Intelligence

CS482, CS682, MW 1 – 2:15, SEM 201, MS 227


Prerequisites: 302, 365
Instructor: Sushil Louis, [email protected], http://www.cse.unr.edu/~sushil
Search Leftovers
• Non-determinism in search
• Solutions can be contingency plans (trees)
• How do we handle non-determinism?
• First: What types of determinism?
• Second: For each type, how do we handle it?
• Partial Observability
• What types of observability do we have?
• How do we handle each?
• Don’t forget Kriegspeil and partial observability in games
• Online-vs-Offline search and execution
• Learning search algorithms
Non-determinism in Actions
• Erratic vacuum-cleaners
• Bad suck actions example
• And-Or trees
• AND
• You can end up in multiple states as the result of an action
• You have to find a path from all of these states (AND)
• OR
• Try each action
• Any one action can lead to the goal state(s) (OR)
Non-determinism in actions
• Slippery vacuum world
• If at first you don’t succeed try, try again
• We need to add label to some portion of a plan and use the
label to refer to that portion – rather than repeating the
subplan  And-Or graphs with labels
• Plan: [Suck, L1: Right, if State == 5 then L1 else Suck]
Searching with Partial observation
• Agents percepts cannot pin down the exact state the agent is in
• Let Agents have Belief states
• Search for a sequence of belief states that leads to a goal
• Search for a plan that leads to a goal

• First: NO percepts  sensor-less


• States? (Belief states)
• Initial State?
• Actions? Consider sensor-less vacuum world
• Transition Model?
• Goal test?
• Path cost?
Sensor-less vacuum world
• Assume belief states are
the same but no location
or dust sensors
• Initial state = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8}
• Action: Right
• Result = {2, 4, 6, 8}
• Right, Suck
• Result = {4, 8}
• Right, Suck, Left, Suck You do not need sensors to COERCE
the world into a specific state!
• Result = {7} guaranteed!
Sensor-less search
• Search
  in belief state space, where the problem is fully observable!
• Solution is a sequence, even if the environment is non-deterministic!
• Suppose the underlying problem (P) is
• {}
• What is the corresponding sensor-less problem
• States  Belief States: every possible set of physical states
• If N physical states, number of belief states can be
• Initial State: Typically the set of all states in P
• Actions: Consider {s1, s2}
• If (s1) != (s2) should we take the Union of both sets of actions or the
Intersection?
• Union if all actions are legal, intersection if not
Sensor-less search (cont’d)
•  Transition model
• Union of all states that (s) returns for all states, s, in your current
belief state
• = { : = (s, a) and s ϵ b}
• This is the prediction step, (b, a)
• Goal-Test: If all physical states in belief state satisfy
• Path cost  Tricky in general. Consider what happens if
actions in different physical states have different costs. For
now assume cost of an action is the same in all states
Examples
• Erratic - Right • Slippery – Right

• Action can increase


the number of
physical states in a
belief state
Belief states synposis
• Search through belief state space is usually worse than physical state
space (size)
• Alternatives:
• Logic representations
• Incremental belief-state search
• For each physical state in belief state find a solution that will take you to goal
• Fast failure but have to find one solution that works for all physical states in
initial state
Searching with observations
• Many problems require sensors
• Percept(s) or Percepts(s) function
• Vacuum world example
• Location sensor
• Current location dirt sensor. Cannot detect dirt in other square
• Percept(s1) = [A, Dirty]
• Observability
• Sensor-less problems  Percepts(s) = Null for all s
• Fully observable  Percepts(s) = s for every s
Example
• If you get [A, Dirty] you could be in {1, 3}
• Result({1, 3}, Right) is

• Now
• if you see (observe) [B, Dirty] you are in {2}
• If you observe [b, Clean] you are in {4}
• Transition Model is more complicated, otherwise this is not
very different from other search problems
3-stage transition model
•• Prediction
  stage
• Predicted belief state is b^ = Predict(b, a)
• Observation prediction stage
• Possible-Percepts(b^) = {o : o = Percept(s) and s ϵ b^}
• Update stage
• = Update(b^, o) = {s : o = Percept(s) and s ϵ b^}

• So, Results(b, a)
• = { : = Update(Predict(b, a), o) and o ϵ Possible-Percepts(Predict(b, a))}
Example: Slippery vacuum
And-Or solution
• Given this problem formulation, we can use the And-Or search
algorithm to come up with a plan to solve the problem
• Given [A, Dirty], Plan = {Suck, Right, if Bstate = {6} then Suck else []}
Partially observable environments
• An agent in a partially observable environment must update belief
state from percept
• b’ = Update(Predict(b, a), o)
• So the agent is only looking at the current o (percept) not the entire
history, as we considered earlier. This is recursive state estimation
• Example: Kindergarten vacuum world
Localization in robotics
• Maintaining belief states is a core function of any Intelligent Agent
• Monitoring, filtering, state estimation
• Robot:
• Four sonar sensors (NSWE)  give correct data
• Robot has correct map of environment
• Move is broken  Robot moves to random adjacent square
• Robot must determine current location

• Suppose it gets [NSW]  obstacles N, S, and W


Robot localization
• It must be in one of the following squares after [NSW]

• Now it gets [NS], where can it be?


Robot localization
• Only one location possible

Percepts usually reduce uncertainity


Online search
• Not find plan then execute then stop
• Compute, execute, observe, compute, execute, …
• Interleave computation and action
• Great for
• dynamic domains
• Non deterministic domains
• Necessary in unknown environments
• Robot localization in an unknown environment (no map)
• Does not know about obstacles, where the goal is, that UP from (1,1) goes to (1, 2)
• Once in (1, 2) does not know that down will go to (1, 1)
• Some knowledge might be available
• If location of goal is known, might use Manhattan distance heuristic
• Competitive Ratio = Cost of shortest path without exploration/Cost of actual agent path
• Irreversible actions can lead to dead ends and CR can become infinite
Examples
• Adversary argument
Online search algorithms
• Local search is better!
• Online-DFS
Online local search
• Hill-climbing is already an online search algorithm but stops at
local optimum. How about randomization?
• Cannot do random restart (you can’t teleport a robot)
• How about just a random walk instead of hill-climbing?

• Can be very bad (two ways back for every way forward above)
• Let’s augment HC with memory
• Learning real-time A* (LRTA*)
• Updates cost estimates, g(s), for the state it leaves
• Likes unexplored states
• f(s) = h(s) not g(s) + h(s) for unexplored states
LRTA* Example
• We are in shaded state
LRTA* algorithm
Questions
• DFS always expands at least as many nodes as A* with an
admissable heuristic (True/False). Explain.
• H(n) = 0 is an admissible heuristic for the 8-puzzle
• BFS is complete even if 0 step costs are allowed
Types of task environments
Task Env Observable Agents Deterministic Episodic Static Discrete
Soccer
Explore Titan
Shopping for
used AI books
on the Net
Playing tennis
Playing tennis
against a wall
Performing a
high jump
Knitting a
sweater
Bidding on an
item in an
auction

You might also like