8/29

1. 8/29

2. Administrative.. • Bouncing mails • Qle01; jmussem; rbalakr2 • Send me a working email address for class list • Blog posting issues • Recitation session for Homework 1? • Mail sent by Will Cushing (respond to him) • Show of hands…

3. Representation Mechanisms: Logic (propositional; first order) Probabilistic logic Learning the models Search Blind, Informed Planning Inference Logical resolution Bayesian inference How the course topics stack up…

4. Problem Solving Agents (Search-based Agents)

7. The important difference from the graph-search scenario you learned in CSE 310 is that you want to keep the graph implicit rather than explicit (i.e., generate only that part of the graph that is absolutely needed to get the optimal path)  VERY important since for most problems, the graphs are humongous..

10. What happens when the domain Is inaccessible?

11. Utility of eyes (sensors) is reflected in the size of the effective search space! In general, a subgraph rather than a tree (loops may be needed consider closing a faulty door ) Given a state space of size n the single-state problem searches for a path in the graph of size n the multiple-state problem searches for a path in a graph of size 2n the contingency problem searches for a sub-graph in a graph of size 2n 2n is the EVILthat every CS student’s nightmares are made of

12. You search in this Space even if your Init state is known But actions are Non-deterministic Sensing reduces State Uncertainty Search in Multi-state (inaccessible) version Set of states is Called a “Belief State” So we are searching in the space of belief states

18. ?? General Search

19. All search algorithms must do goal-test only when the node is picked up for expansion

20. Search algorithms differ based on the specific queuing function they use

25. Breadth first search on a uniform tree of b=10 Assume 1000nodes expanded/sec 100bytes/node

27. Qn: Is there a way of getting linear memory search that is complete and optimal?

28. The search is “complete” now (since there is finite space to be explored). But still inoptimal.

31. 8/31

32. All search algorithms must do goal-test only when the node is picked up for expansion

33. Search algorithms differ based on the specific queuing function they use We typically analyze properties of search algorithms on uniform trees --with uniform branching factor b and goal depth d (tree itself may go to depth dt)

34. IDDFS: Review

35. BFS: A,B,G A,B,C,D,G (A), (A, B, G) DFS: IDDFS: Note that IDDFS can do fewer Expansions than DFS on a graph Shaped search space. A B C D G

37. BFS: A,B,G A,B,A,B,A,B,A,B,A,B (A), (A, B, G) DFS: IDDFS: Note that IDDFS can do fewer Expansions than DFS on a graph Shaped search space. A B C D G Search on undirected graphs or directed graphs with cycles… Cycles galore…

38. Graph (instead of tree) Search: Handling repeated nodes Main points: --repeated expansions is a bigger issue for DFS than for BFS or IDDFS --Trying to remember all previously expanded nodes and comparing the new nodes with them is infeasible --Space becomes exponential --duplicate checking can also be exponential --Partial reduction in repeated expansion can be done by --Checking to see if any children of a node n have the same state as the parent of n -- Checking to see if any children of a node n have the same state as any ancestor of n (at most d ancestors for n—where d is the depth of n)

39. A A 1 0.1 Bait & Switch Graph N1:B(1) N2:G(9) B B 1 0.1 9 9 N3:C(2) C C 1 0.1 D N4:D(3) D 2 25 G G N5:G(5) Uniform Cost Search No:A (0) Completeness? Optimality? if d < d’, then paths with d distance explored before those with d’ Branch & Bound argument (as long as all op costs are +ve) Efficiency? (as bad as blind search..) Notation: C(n,n’) cost of the edge between n and n’ g(n) distance of n from root dist(n,n’’) shortest distance between n and n’’

40. Breadth-First goes level by level Visualizing Breadth-First & Uniform Cost Search This is also a proof of optimality…

41. Proof of Optimality of Uniform search Proof of optimality: Let N be the goal node we output. Suppose there is another goal node N’ We want to prove that g(N’) >= g(N) Suppose this is not true. i.e. g(N’) < g(N) --Assumption A1 When N was picked up for expansion, Either N’ itself, or some ancestor of N’, Say N’’ must have been on the search queue If we picked N instead of N’’ for expansion, It was because g(N) <= g(N’’) ---Fact f1 But g(N’) = g(N’’) + dist(N’’,N’) So g(N’) >= g(N’’) So from f1, we have g(N) <= g(N’) But this contradicts our assumption A1 No N’’ N N’ Holds only because dist(N’’,N’) >= 0 This will hold if every operator has +ve cost

42. A 0.1 Bait & Switch Graph N1:B(.1) N2:G(9) B 0.1 9 N3:C(.2) C 0.1 N4:D(.3) D 25 G N5:G(25.3) Admissibility Informedness “Informing” Uniform search… No:A (0) Would be nice if we could tell that N2 is better than N1 --Need to take not just the distance until now, but also distance to goal --Computing true distance to goal is as hard as the full search --So, try “bounds” h(n) prioritize nodes in terms of f(n) = g(n) +h(n) two bounds: h1(n) <= h*(n) <= h2(n) Which guarantees optimality? --h1(n) <= h2(n) <= h*(n) Which is better function?