Informed search

algorithms
 Outline
 Review limitations of uninformed search methods
 Informed (or heuristic) search uses
problem-specific heuristics to improve
efficiency
 Best-first, A* (and if needed for memory limits, RBFS, SMA*)
 Techniques for generating heuristics
 A* is optimal with admissible (tree)/consistent (graph)
heuristics
 A* is quick and easy to code, and often works *very* well
 Heuristics

A structured way to add “smarts” to your solution
 Provide *significant* speed-ups in practice

 Still have worst-case exponential time complexity

 In AI, “NP-Complete” means “Formally interesting”

 Limitations of uninformed
search

 Search Space Size makes search tedious

 Combinatorial Explosion
 For example, 8-puzzle
 Avg. solution cost is about 22 steps
 branching factor ~ 3
 Exhaustive search to depth 22:

3.1 x 1010 states
 E.g., d=12, IDS expands 3.6 million states on average

[24 puzzle has 1024 states (much worse)]

Recall tree search…
Recall tree search…

This “strategy” is what

differentiates different
search algorithms
 Heuristic search
 Idea: use an evaluation function f(n) for each node
and a heuristic function h(n) for each node

g(n) = known path cost so far to node n.

h(n) = estimate of (optimal) cost to goal from node n.

f(n) = g(n)+h(n) = estimate of total cost to goal through node n.

f(n) provides an estimate for the total cost:

Expand the node n with smallest f(n).

 Implementation:
Order the nodes in frontier by increasing estimated cost.

 Evaluation function is an estimate of node quality


More accurate name for “best first” search would be
“seemingly best-first search”
 Search efficiency depends on heuristic
quality!

The better your heuristic, the faster your
Heuristic function
 Heuristic:

Definition: a commonsense rule (or set of rules) intended
to increase the probability of solving some problem

Same linguistic root as “Eureka” = “I have found it”

“using rules of thumb to find answers”

 Heuristic function h(n)


Estimate of (optimal) remaining cost from n to goal

Defined using only the state of node n

h(n) = 0 if n is a goal node

Example: straight line distance from n to Bucharest

Note that this is not the true state-space distance

It is an estimate – actual state-space distance can be higher


Provides problem-specific knowledge to the search
algorithm
 Heuristic functions for 8-
puzzle
 8-puzzle
 Avg. solution cost is about 22 steps
 branching factor ~ 3
 Exhaustive search to depth 22:

3.1 x 1010 states.
 A good heuristic function can reduce the search
process.

 Two commonly used heuristics

 h1 = the number of misplaced tiles
 h1(s)=8
 h2 = the sum of the distances of the tiles from their
goal positions (Manhattan distance).
 h (s)=3+1+2+2+2+3+3+2=18
2
Romania with straight-line
dist.
Relationship of Search
Algorithms
 g(n) = known cost so far to reach n
 h(n) = estimated (optimal) cost from n to goal
 f(n) = g(n) + h(n)
= estimated (optimal) total cost of path through n to
goal

 Uniform Cost search sorts frontier by g(n)

 Greedy Best First search sorts frontier by h(n)
 A* search sorts frontier by f(n)

Optimal for admissible/consistent heuristics

Generally the preferred heuristic search
 Memory-efficient versions of A* are available

 Greedy best-first search
(often called just “best-first”)

 h(n) = estimate of cost from n to goal


e.g., h(n) = straight-line distance from n
to Bucharest

 Greedy best-first search expands the

node that appears to be closest to
goal.

Priority queue sort function = h(n)
Greedy best-first search
example
Greedy best-first search
example
Greedy best-first search
example
Greedy best-first search
example
Optimal Path
Properties of greedy best-
first search
 Complete?

Tree version can get stuck in loops.

Graph version is complete in finite spaces.
 Time? O(bm)

A good heuristic can give dramatic
improvement
 Space? O(bm)

Keeps all nodes in memory
 Optimal? No
e.g., Arad  Sibiu  Rimnicu Vilcea  Pitesti
 Bucharest is shorter!
A* search
 Idea: avoid paths that are already
expensive

Generally the preferred simple heuristic search

Optimal if heuristic is:
admissible(tree)/consistent(graph)
 Evaluation function f(n) = g(n) + h(n)
 g(n) = known path cost so far to node n.
 h(n) = estimate of (optimal) cost to goal from node n.
 f(n) = g(n)+h(n)
= estimate of total cost to goal through node n.
 Priority queue sort function = f(n)
 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 (or at least,
never pessimistic)
 Example: hSLD(n) (never overestimates actual road distance)
 Theorem:
If h(n) is admissible, A* using TREE-SEARCH is optimal
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
Consistent heuristics
(consistent => admissible)
 A heuristic is consistent if for every node n, every successor
n' of n generated by any action a,

h(n) ≤ c(n,a,n') + h(n')

 If h is consistent, we have

f(n’) = g(n’) + h(n’) (by def.)

= g(n) + c(n,a,n') + h(n’) (g(n’)=g(n)+c(n.a.n’))
≥ g(n) + h(n) = f(n) (consistency)
f(n’) ≥ f(n)
It’s the triangle
 i.e., f(n) is non-decreasing along any path. inequality !

 Theorem: keeps all checked nodes

in memory
If h(n) is consistent, A* using GRAPH-SEARCH to avoid repeated
is optimal
states
 Admissible (Tree Search)
vs.
Consistent (Graph Search)
 Why two different conditions?

In graph search you often find a long cheap path to a node
after a short expensive one, so you might have to update
all of its descendants to use the new cheaper path cost so
far

A consistent heuristic avoids this problem (it can’t happen)

Consistent is slightly stronger than admissible

Almost all admissible heuristics are also consistent
 Could we do optimal graph search with
an admissible heuristic?

Yes, but you would have to do additional work to update
descendants when a cheaper path to a node is found

A consistent heuristic avoids this problem
A* search example
A search example
*
A* search example
A* search example
A* search example
A* search example
 Contours of A* Search
 A* expands nodes in order of increasing f
value
 Gradually adds "f-contours" of nodes
 Contour i has all nodes with f=fi, where fi
< fi+1
 Properties of A*
 Complete? Yes
(unless there are infinitely many nodes with f ≤ f(G);
can’t happen if step-cost  ε > 0)
 Time/Space? Exponential O(bd)
except if: | h(n)  h * (n) |O (logh * (n))
 Optimal? Yes
(with: Tree-Search, admissible heuristic;
Graph-Search, consistent heuristic)
 Optimally Efficient? Yes
(no optimal algorithm with same heuristic is guaranteed to
expand fewer nodes)
 Optimality of A* (proof)
 Suppose some suboptimal goal G2 has been generated and is
in the frontier. Let n be an unexpanded node in the frontier
such that n is on a shortest path to an optimal goal G.
We want to prove:
f(n) < f(G2)
(then A* will prefer n over G2)
 f(G2) = g(G2) since h(G2) = 0
 f(G) = g(G) since h(G) = 0
 g(G2) > g(G) since G2 is suboptimal

f(G2) > f(G) from above
 h(n) ≤ h*(n) since h is admissible (under-estimate)
 g(n) + h(n) ≤ g(n) + h*(n) from above
 f(n) ≤ f(G) since g(n)+h(n)=f(n) & g(n)+h*(n)=f(G)
 f(n) < f(G2) from
 Memory Bounded Heuristic
Search: Recursive Best First
Search (RBFS)
 How can we solve the memory problem for
A* search?

 Idea: Try something like depth first search,

but let’s not forget everything about the
branches we have partially explored.
 We remember the best f(n) value we have
found so far in the branch we are deleting.
 RBFS:
best alternative
over frontier nodes,
which are not children:
i.e. do I want to back up?

RBFS changes its mind

very often in practice.

This is because the

=g+h become more
accurate (less optimistic)
as we approach the goal.
Hence, higher level nodes
have smaller f-values and
will be explored first.

Problem: We should keep

n memory whatever we can.
 Simple Memory Bounded A*
(SMA*)
 This is like A*, but when memory is full we
delete the worst node (largest f-value).
 Like RBFS, we remember the best
descendent in the branch we delete.
 If there is a tie (equal f-values) we delete the
oldest nodes first.
 simple-MBA* finds the optimal reachable
solution given the memory constraint.
A Solution is not reachable
if a single path from root to goal
 Time can still be exponential.does not fit into memory
SMA* pseudocode (not in 2nd edition of R&N)
function SMA*(problem) returns a solution sequence
inputs: problem, a problem
static: Queue, a queue of nodes ordered by f-cost
Queue  MAKE-QUEUE({MAKE-NODE(INITIAL-STATE[problem])})
loop do
if Queue is empty then return failure
n  deepest least-f-cost node in Queue
if GOAL-TEST(n) then return success
s  NEXT-SUCCESSOR(n)
if s is not a goal and is at maximum depth then
f(s)  
else
f(s)  MAX(f(n),g(s)+h(s))
if all of n’s successors have been generated then
update n’s f-cost and those of its ancestors if necessary
if SUCCESSORS(n) all in memory then remove n from Queue
if memory is full then
delete shallowest, highest-f-cost node in Queue
remove it from its parent’s successor list
insert its parent on Queue if necessary
insert s in Queue
end
 Simple Memory-bounded A*
(SMA*)
(Example with 3-node memory)maximal depth is 3, since
memory limit is 3. This
Progress of SMA*. Each node is labeled with its current f-cost. branch is now useless.
Values in parentheses show the value of the best forgotten
descendant. best forgotten node
Search space best estimated solution
so far for that node
g+h = f ☐ = goal A
13[15]
A
0+12=12 A A A
12 12
10 8 13
G
B G 13
10+5=15 8+5=13
B B G
10 10 8 16 15
18 H
15 13
20+5=25
C D
16+2=18
H I 
20+0=20 24+0=24
10 10 A A A
8 8 15[15] 15[24] 20[24]
E F J K
A 8
15
30+5=35 30+0=30 24+0=24 24+5=29 G B B
15 20[]
24[]

B G
I D
15 24 C 25
24 20

Algorithm can tell you when best solution found within memory constraint is optimal or not.
 Memory Bounded A*
Search
 The Memory Bounded A* Search is the
best of the search algorithms we have
seen so far. It uses all its memory to
avoid double work and uses smart
heuristics to first descend into promising
branches of the search-tree.
 If memory not a problem, then plain A*
search is easy to code and performs
well.
Heuristic functions

 8-puzzle
 Avg. solution cost is about 22 steps
 branching factor ~ 3
 Exhaustive search to depth 22:

3.1 x 1010 states.
 A good heuristic function can reduce the search
process.

 Two commonly used heuristics

 h1 = the number of misplaced tiles
 h1(s)=8
 h2 = the sum of the axis-parallel distances of the
tiles from their goal positions (manhattan distance).
 h (s)=3+1+2+2+2+3+3+2=18
2
Dominance

IF h2(n) ≥ h1(n) for all n (both admissible)
THEN h2 dominates h1

h2 is always better for search than h1

h2 guarantees to expand no more nodes than does h1

h2 almost always expands fewer nodes than does h1

 Typical 8-puzzle search costs

(average number of nodes 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
 Effective branching factor:
b*

 Let A* generate N nodes to find a goal at depth

d
 b* is the branching factor that a uniform tree of depth d would have in
order to contain N+1 nodes. 2 d
N  1 1  b * (b*)  ...  (b*)
N  1 ((b*) d 1  1) /(b *  1)
N (b*) d  b* d N
 For sufficiently hard problems, the measure b* usually is fairly constant
across different problem instances.
 A good guide to the heuristic’s overall
usefulness.
 A good way to compare different heuristics.
 Effective Branching Factor
Pseudo-code (Binary
search)
 PROCEDURE EFFBRANCH (START, END, N, D, DELTA)
COMMENT DELTA IS A SMALL POSITIVE NUMBER FOR ACCURACY OF RESULT.
MID := (START + END) / 2.
IF (END - START < DELTA)
THEN RETURN (MID).
TEST := EFFPOLY (MID, D).
IF (TEST < N+1)
THEN RETURN (EFFBRANCH (MID, END, N, D, DELTA) )
ELSE RETURN (EFFBRANCH (START, MID, N, D, DELTA) ).
END EFFBRANCH.

PROCEDURE EFFPOLY (B, D)

ANSWER = 1.
TEMP = 1.
FOR I FROM 1 TO (D-1) DO
TEMP := TEMP * B.
ANSWER := ANSWER + TEMP.
ENDDO.
RETURN (ANSWER).
END EFFPOLY.

 For binary search please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_search_algorithm

 An attractive alternative is to use Newton’s Method (next lecture) to solve for the root (i.e., f(b)=0) of
f(b) = 1 + b + ... + b^d - (N+1)
 Effectiveness of different
heuristics

 Results averaged over random

instances of the 8-puzzle
Inventing heuristics via
“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

 Can be a useful way to generate heuristics


E.g., ABSOLVER (Prieditis, 1993) discovered the first useful heuristic for
the Rubik’s cube puzzle
 More on heuristics
 h(n) = max{ h1(n), h2(n), …, hk(n) }
 Assume all h functions are admissible
 E.g., h1(n) = # of misplaced tiles
 E.g., h2(n) = manhattan distance, etc.
 max chooses least optimistic heuristic (most accurate) at
each node

 h(n) = w1 h1 (n) + w2 h2(n) + … + wk hk(n)

 A convex combination of features

Weighted sum of h(n)’s, where weights sum to 1
 Weights learned via repeated puzzle-solving
 Try to identify which features are predictive of path cost
Summary
 Uninformed search methods have uses, also severe
limitations
 Heuristics are a structured way to add “smarts” to your
search

 Informed (or heuristic) search uses problem-specific heuristics

to improve efficiency

Best-first, A* (and if needed for memory limits, RBFS, SMA*)

Techniques for generating heuristics

A* is optimal with admissible (tree)/consistent (graph) heuristics

 Can provide significant speed-ups in practice


E.g., on 8-puzzle, speed-up is dramatic

Still have worst-case exponential time complexity

In AI, “NP-Complete” means “Formally interesting”

 Next lecture topic: local search techniques


Hill-climbing, genetic algorithms, simulated annealing, etc.

Read Chapter 4 in advance of lecture, and again after lecture