1 / 53

Searching MIU

Searching MIU. Blind Searching. Graham Kendall. Problem Definition - 1. Initial State The initial state of the problem, defined in some suitable manner Operator A set of actions that moves the problem from one state to another. Problem Definition - 1. Neighbourhood (Successor Function)

faris
Download Presentation

Searching MIU

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SearchingMIU Blind Searching Graham Kendall

  2. Problem Definition - 1 • Initial State • The initial state of the problem, defined in some suitable manner • Operator • A set of actions that moves the problem from one state to another

  3. Problem Definition - 1 • Neighbourhood (Successor Function) • The set of all possible states reachable from a given state • State Space • The set of all states reachable from the initial state

  4. Problem Definition - 2 • Goal Test • A test applied to a state which returns if we have reached a state that solves the problem • Path Cost • How much it costs to take a particular path

  5. 5 4 1 2 3 6 1 8 8 4 7 3 2 7 6 5 1 1 2 4 3 7 4 2 5 5 6 8 7 3 8 6 Problem Definition - Example Initial State Goal State

  6. Problem Definition - Example • States • A description of each of the eight tiles in each location that it can occupy. It is also useful to include the blank • Operators • The blank moves left, right, up or down

  7. Problem Definition - Example • Goal Test • The current state matches a certain state (e.g. one of the ones shown on previous slide) • Path Cost • Each move of the blank costs 1

  8. Problem Definition - Datatype • Datatype PROBLEM • Components • INITIAL-STATE, • OPERATORS, • GOAL-TEST, • PATH-COST-FUNCTION

  9. How Good is a Solution? • Does our search method actually find a solution? • Is it a good solution? • Path Cost • Search Cost (Time and Memory) • Does it find the optimal solution? • But what is optimal?

  10. Evaluating a Search • Completeness • Is the strategy guaranteed to find a solution? • Time Complexity • How long does it take to find a solution?

  11. Evaluating a Search • Space Complexity • How much memory does it take to perform the search? • Optimality • Does the strategy find the optimal solution where there are several solutions?

  12. x x x x x x x x x ……….. o o x x x x o Search Trees

  13. Search Trees • ISSUES • Search trees grow very quickly • The size of the search tree is governed by the branching factor • Even this simple game has a complete search tree of 984,410 potential nodes • The search tree for chess has a branching factor of about 35

  14. Implementing a Search - What we need to store • State • This represents the state in the state space to which this node corresponds • Parent-Node • This points to the node that generated this node. In a data structure representing a tree it is usual to call this the parent node

  15. Implementing a Search - What we need to store • Operator • The operator that was applied to generate this node • Depth • The number of nodes from the root (i.e. the depth) • Path-Cost • The path cost from the initial state to this node

  16. Implementing a Search - Datatype • Datatype node • Components: • STATE, • PARENT-NODE, • OPERATOR, • DEPTH, • PATH-COST

  17. Using a Tree – The Obvious Solution? • Advantages • It’s intuitive • Parent’s are automatically catered for

  18. Using a Tree – The Obvious Solution? • But • It can be wasteful on space • It can be difficult the implement, particularly if there are varying number of children (as in tic-tac-toe) • It is not always obvious which node to expand next. We may have to search the tree looking for the best leaf node (sometimes called the fringe or frontier nodes). This can obviously be computationally expensive

  19. Using a Tree – Maybe not so obvious • Therefore • It would be nice to have a “simpler” data structure to represent our tree • And it would be nice if the next node to be expanded was an O(1) operation

  20. General Search • Function GENERAL-SEARCH(problem, QUEUING-FN) returns a solution or failure • nodes = MAKE-QUEUE(MAKE-NODE(INITIAL-STATE[problem])) • Loop do • If nodes is empty then return failure • node = REMOVE-FRONT(nodes) • If GOAL-TEST[problem] applied to STATE(node) succeeds then return node • nodes = QUEUING-FN(nodes,EXPAND(node,OPERATORS[problem])) • End • End Function

  21. General Search • Function GENERAL-SEARCH(problem, QUEUING-FN) returns a solution or failure • nodes = MAKE-QUEUE(MAKE-NODE(INITIAL-STATE[problem])) • Loop do • If nodes is empty then return failure • node = REMOVE-FRONT(nodes) • If GOAL-TEST[problem] applied to STATE(node) succeeds then return node • nodes = QUEUING-FN(nodes,EXPAND(node,OPERATORS[problem])) • End • End Function

  22. General Search • Function GENERAL-SEARCH(problem, QUEUING-FN) returns a solution or failure • nodes = MAKE-QUEUE(MAKE-NODE(INITIAL-STATE[problem])) • Loop do • If nodes is empty then return failure • node = REMOVE-FRONT(nodes) • If GOAL-TEST[problem] applied to STATE(node) succeeds then return node • nodes = QUEUING-FN(nodes,EXPAND(node,OPERATORS[problem])) • End • End Function

  23. General Search • Function GENERAL-SEARCH(problem, QUEUING-FN) returns a solution or failure • nodes = MAKE-QUEUE(MAKE-NODE(INITIAL-STATE[problem])) • Loop do • If nodes is empty then return failure • node = REMOVE-FRONT(nodes) • If GOAL-TEST[problem] applied to STATE(node) succeeds then return node • nodes = QUEUING-FN(nodes,EXPAND(node,OPERATORS[problem])) • End • End Function

  24. General Search • Function GENERAL-SEARCH(problem, QUEUING-FN) returns a solution or failure • nodes = MAKE-QUEUE(MAKE-NODE(INITIAL-STATE[problem])) • Loop do • If nodes is empty then return failure • node = REMOVE-FRONT(nodes) • If GOAL-TEST[problem] applied to STATE(node) succeeds then return node • nodes = QUEUING-FN(nodes,EXPAND(node,OPERATORS[problem])) • End • End Function

  25. General Search • Function GENERAL-SEARCH(problem, QUEUING-FN) returns a solution or failure • nodes = MAKE-QUEUE(MAKE-NODE(INITIAL-STATE[problem])) • Loop do • If nodes is empty then return failure • node = REMOVE-FRONT(nodes) • If GOAL-TEST[problem] applied to STATE(node) succeeds then return node • nodes = QUEUING-FN(nodes,EXPAND(node,OPERATORS[problem])) • End • End Function

  26. General Search • Function GENERAL-SEARCH(problem, QUEUING-FN) returns a solution or failure • nodes = MAKE-QUEUE(MAKE-NODE(INITIAL-STATE[problem])) • Loop do • If nodes is empty then return failure • node = REMOVE-FRONT(nodes) • If GOAL-TEST[problem] applied to STATE(node) succeeds then return node • nodes = QUEUING-FN(nodes,EXPAND(node,OPERATORS[problem])) • End • End Function

  27. Blind Searches

  28. Blind Searches - Characteristics • Simply searches the State Space • Can only distinguish between a goal state and a non-goal state • Sometimes called an uninformed search as it has no knowledge about its domain

  29. Blind Searches - Characteristics • Blind Searches have no preference as to which state (node) that is expanded next • The different types of blind searches are characterised by the order in which they expand the nodes. • This can have a dramatic effect on how well the search performs when measured against the four criteria we defined in an earlier lecture

  30. Breadth First Search - Method • Expand Root Node First • Expand all nodes at level 1 before expanding level 2 • OR • Expand all nodes at level d before expanding nodes at level d+1

  31. Breadth First Search - Implementation • Use a queueing function that adds nodes to the end of the queue Function BREADTH-FIRST-SEARCH(problem) returns a solution or failure Return GENERAL-SEARCH(problem,ENQUEUE-AT-END)

  32. C B C E D G D F E A B C D E F D G E Breadth First Search - Implementation A

  33. Evaluating Breadth First Search • Observations • Very systematic • If there is a solution breadth first search is guaranteed to find it • If there are several solutions then breadth first search will always find the shallowest goal state first and if the cost of a solution is a non-decreasing function of the depth then it will always find the cheapest solution

  34. Evaluating Breadth First Search • Evaluating against four criteria • Complete? : Yes • Optimal? : Yes • Space Complexity : 1 + b + b2 + b3 + ... + bd i.e O(bd) • Time Complexity : 1 + b + b2 + b3 + ... + bd i.e. O(bd) • Where b is the branching factor and d is the depth of the search tree • Note : The space/time complexity could be less as the solution could be found anywhere on the dth level.

  35. Exponential Growth • Exponential growth quickly makes complete state space searches unrealistic • If the branch factor was 10, by level 5 we would need to search 100,000 nodes (i.e. 105)

  36. Exponential Growth Time and memory requirements for breadth-first search, assuming a branching factor of 10, 100 bytes per node and searching 1000 nodes/second

  37. Exponential Growth - Observations • Space is more of a factor to breadth first search than time • Time is still an issue. Who has 35 years to wait for an answer to a level 12 problem (or even 128 days to a level 10 problem) • It could be argued that as technology gets faster then exponential growth will not be a problem. But even if technology is 100 times faster we would still have to wait 35 years for a level 14 problem and what if we hit a level 15 problem!

  38. Uniform Cost Search (vs BFS) • BFS will find the optimal (shallowest) solution so long as the cost is a function of the depth • Uniform Cost Search can be used when this is not the case and uniform cost search will find the cheapest solution provided that the cost of the path never decreases as we proceed along the path • Uniform Cost Search works by expanding the lowest cost node on the fringe.

  39. A B G S C 10 1 5 5 15 5 Uniform Cost Search - Example • BFS will find the path SAG, with a cost of 11, but SBG is cheaper with a cost of 10 • Uniform Cost Search will find the cheaper solution (SBG). It will find SAG but will not see it as it is not at the head of the queue

  40. Depth First Search - Method • Expand Root Node First • Explore one branch of the tree before exploring another branch

  41. Depth First Search - Implementation • Use a queueing function that adds nodes to the front of the queue • Function DEPTH-FIRST-SEARCH(problem) returns a solution or failure • Return GENERAL-SEARCH(problem,ENQUEUE-AT-FRONT)

  42. Depth First Search - Observations • Only needs to store the path from the root to the leaf node as well as the unexpanded nodes. For a state space with a branching factor of b and a maximum depth of m, DFS requires storage of bm nodes • Time complexity for DFS is bm in the worst case

  43. Depth First Search - Observations • If DFS goes down a infinite branch it will not terminate if it does not find a goal state. • If it does find a solution there may be a better solution at a lower level in the tree. Therefore, depth first search is neither complete nor optimal.

  44. Depth Limited Search (vs DFS) • DFS may never terminate as it could follow a path that has no solution on it • DLS solves this by imposing a depth limit, at which point the search terminates that particular branch

  45. Depth Limited Search - Observations • Can be implemented by the general search algorithm using operators which keep track of the depth • Choice of depth parameter is important • Too deep is wasteful of time and space • Too shallow and we may never reach a goal state

  46. Depth Limited Search - Observations • If the depth parameter, l, is set deep enough then we are guaranteed to find a solution if one exists • Therefore it is complete if l>=d (d=depth of solution) • Space requirements are O(bl) • Time requirements are O(bl) • DLS is not optimal

  47. Neamt Odarea Iasi Zerind Vaslui Fararas Sibiu Arad Timisoara Rimnicu Vilcea Urziceni Hirsova Lugoj Pitesti Bucharest Mehadia Eforie Dobreta Giurgui Craiova Map of Romania On the Romania map there are 20 towns so any town is reachable in 19 steps In fact, any town is reachable in 9 steps

  48. Iterative Deepening Search (vs DLS) • The problem with DLS is choosing a depth parameter • Setting a depth parameter to 19 is obviously wasteful if using DLS • IDS overcomes this problem by trying depth limits of 0, 1, 2, …, n. In effect it is combining BFS and DFS

  49. Iterative Deepening Search - Observations • IDS may seem wasteful as it is expanding the same nodes many times. In fact, when b=10 only about 11% more nodes are expanded than for a BFS or a DLS down to level d • Time Complexity = O(bd) • Space Complexity = O(bd) • For large search spaces, where the depth of the solution is not known, IDS is normally the preferred search method

  50. Repeated States - Three Methods • Do not generate a node that is the same as the parent nodeOrDo not return to the state you have just come from • Do not create paths with cycles in them. To do this we can check each ancestor node and refuse to create a state that is the same as this set of nodes

More Related