0% found this document useful (0 votes)
11 views54 pages

Lecture 3 - Informed Search

Chapter 3 of TEB2023 discusses informed search strategies in artificial intelligence, focusing on heuristics, greedy search, and A* search algorithms. It explains the importance of admissible heuristics for optimality and outlines the differences between uniform-cost and A* search. The chapter also covers graph search techniques and the significance of consistency in heuristics for maintaining optimality in search algorithms.

Uploaded by

watif16207
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
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
11 views54 pages

Lecture 3 - Informed Search

Chapter 3 of TEB2023 discusses informed search strategies in artificial intelligence, focusing on heuristics, greedy search, and A* search algorithms. It explains the importance of admissible heuristics for optimality and outlines the differences between uniform-cost and A* search. The chapter also covers graph search techniques and the significance of consistency in heuristics for maintaining optimality in search algorithms.

Uploaded by

watif16207
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/ 54

TEB2023: Artificial Intelligence

Chapter 3
Informed Search
Today: Course Objectives

 Informed Search
 Heuristics
 Greedy Search
 A* Search

 Graph Search
Recap: Search
Recap: Search
 Search problem:
 States (configurations of the world)
 Actions and costs
 Successor function (world dynamics)
 Start state and goal test

 Search tree:
 Nodes: represent plans for reaching states
 Plans have costs (sum of action costs)

 Search algorithm:
 Systematically builds a search tree
 Chooses an ordering of the fringe (unexplored nodes)
 Optimal: finds least-cost plans
Example: Pancake Problem

Cost: Number of pancakes flipped


Example: Pancake Problem
State space graph with costs as weights

4
2 3
2
3

4
3
4 2

3 2
2
4

3
General Tree Search

Action: flip top two Action: fliptoallreach


Path four goal:
Cost: 2 Cost:
Flip 4 flip three
four,
Total cost: 7
Uninformed Search
Uniform Cost Search
 Strategy: expand lowest path cost c1

c2
c3

 The good: UCS is complete and optimal!

 The bad:
 Explores options in every “direction”
 No information about goal location Start Goal

[Demo: contours UCS empty (L3D1)]


[Demo: contours UCS pacman small maze (L3D3)]
Video of Demo Contours UCS Empty
Video of Demo Contours UCS Pacman Small Maze
Informed Search
Search Heuristics
 A heuristic is:
 A function that estimates how close a state is to a goal
 Designed for a particular search problem
 Examples: Manhattan distance, Euclidean distance for
pathing

10

5
11.2
Example: Heuristic Function

h(x)
Example: Heuristic Function
Heuristic: the number of the largest pancake that is still out of place
3
4
h(x)

3
4
3 0
4
4 3
4
4 2
3
Greedy Search
Example: Heuristic Function

h(x)
Greedy Search
 Expand the node that seems closest…

 What can go wrong?


Greedy Search
b
 Strategy: expand a node that you think is …

closest to a goal state


 Heuristic: estimate of distance to nearest goal for
each state

 A common case:
 Best-first takes you straight to the (wrong) goal b

 Worst-case: like a badly-guided DFS

[Demo: contours greedy empty (L3D1)]


[Demo: contours greedy pacman small maze (L3D4)]
Video of Demo Contours Greedy (Empty)
Video of Demo Contours Greedy (Pacman Small Maze)
A* Search
A* Search

UCS Greedy

A*
Combining UCS and Greedy
 Uniform-cost orders by path cost, or backward cost g(n)
 Greedy orders by goal proximity, or forward cost h(n)

8 g=0
S h=6
h=1 g=1
e a
1 h=5

1 3 2 g=2 g=9
S a d G
h=6 b d g=4 e h=1
h=6 h=5 h=2
1 h=2 h=0
1 g=3 g=6
c b g = 10
h=7 c G h=0 d
h=2
h=7 h=6
g = 12
 A* Search orders by the sum: f(n) = g(n) + h(n) G h=0

Example: Teg Grenager


When should A* terminate?
 Should we stop when we enqueue a goal?
h=2

2 A 2

S h=3 h=0 G

2 B 3
h=1

 No: only stop when we dequeue a goal


Admissible Heuristics
Idea: Admissibility

Inadmissible (pessimistic) heuristics break Admissible (optimistic) heuristics slow down


optimality by trapping good plans on the fringe bad plans but never outweigh true costs
Admissible Heuristics
 A heuristic h is admissible (optimistic) if:

where is the true cost to a nearest goal


 Examples:
4
15

 Coming up with admissible heuristics is most of what’s involved


in using A* in practice.
Properties of A*
Properties of A*

Uniform-Cost A*

b b
… …
UCS vs A* Contours

 Uniform-cost expands equally in all


“directions”
Start Goal

 A* expands mainly toward the goal,


but does hedge its bets to ensure
optimality Start Goal

[Demo: contours UCS / greedy / A* empty (L3D1)]


[Demo: contours A* pacman small maze (L3D5)]
Video of Demo Contours (Empty) -- UCS
Video of Demo Contours (Empty) -- Greedy
Video of Demo Contours (Empty) – A*
Video of Demo Contours (Pacman Small Maze) – A*
Comparison

Greedy Uniform Cost A*


A* Applications
A* Applications
 Video games
 Pathing / routing problems
 Resource planning problems
 Robot motion planning
 Language analysis
 Machine translation
 Speech recognition
 …
[Demo: UCS / A* pacman tiny maze (L3D6,L3D7)]
[Demo: guess algorithm Empty Shallow/Deep (L3D8)]
Video of Demo Pacman (Tiny Maze) – UCS / A*
Video of Demo Empty Water Shallow/Deep – Guess Algorithm
Creating Heuristics
Creating Admissible Heuristics
 Most of the work in solving hard search problems optimally is in coming up
with admissible heuristics

 Often, admissible heuristics are solutions to relaxed problems, where new


actions are available

366
15

 Inadmissible heuristics are often useful too (loose optimality)


Example: 8 Puzzle

Start State Actions Goal State

 What are the states?


 How many states?
 What are the actions?
 How many successors from the start state?
 What should the costs be?
Graph Search
Graph Search
 Idea: never expand a state twice
 How to implement:
 Tree search + set of expanded states (“closed set”)
 Expand the search tree node-by-node, but…
 Before expanding a node, check to make sure its state has never been
expanded before
 If not new, skip it, if new add to closed set

 Important: store the closed set as a set, not a list


 Can graph search wreck completeness? Why/why not?
 How about optimality?
A* Graph Search Gone Wrong?
State space graph Search tree

A S (0+2)
1
1
S h=4
C
h=1 A (1+4) B (1+1)
h=2 1
2
3 C (2+1) C (3+1)
B
h=1
G (5+0) G (6+0)
G
h=0
Consistency of Heuristics
 Main idea: estimated heuristic costs ≤ actual costs

A  Admissibility: heuristic cost ≤ actual cost to goal

1 h(A) ≤ actual cost from A to G


h=4 C h=1  Consistency: heuristic “arc” cost ≤ actual cost for each arc
h=2
h(A) – h(C) ≤ cost(A to C)
3
 Consequences of consistency:
 The f value along a path never decreases
G h(A) ≤ cost(A to C) + h(C)
 A* graph search is optimal
Optimality of A* Graph Search
Optimality of A* Graph Search

 Sketch: consider what A* does with a


consistent heuristic:
 Fact 1: In tree search, A* expands nodes in … f1
f2
increasing total f value (f-contours)
f3
 Fact 2: For every state s, nodes that reach
s optimally are expanded before nodes
that reach s suboptimally

 Result: A* graph search is optimal


Optimality
 Tree search:
 A* is optimal if heuristic is admissible
 UCS is a special case (h = 0)

 Graph search:
 A* optimal if heuristic is consistent
 UCS optimal (h = 0 is consistent)

 Consistency implies admissibility

 In general, most natural admissible heuristics


tend to be consistent, especially if from relaxed
problems
A*: Summary
A*: Summary
 A* uses both backward costs and (estimates of) forward costs

 A* is optimal with admissible / consistent heuristics

 Heuristic design is key: often use relaxed problems


Tree Search Pseudo-Code
Graph Search Pseudo-Code

You might also like