An Adversarial Planning Approach to Go Paper Authors: S. Willmott, J. Richardson, A. Bundy, J. Levine Presentation Author: A. Botea.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Adversarial Search Chapter 6 Sections 1 – 4. Outline Optimal decisions α-β pruning Imperfect, real-time decisions.
Advertisements

METAGAMER: An Agent for Learning and Planning in General Games Barney Pell NASA Ames Research Center.
Game Playing CS 63 Chapter 6
Adversarial Search Chapter 6 Section 1 – 4. Types of Games.
Artificial Intelligence Presentation
Development of the Best Tsume-Go Solver
Games & Adversarial Search Chapter 5. Games vs. search problems "Unpredictable" opponent  specifying a move for every possible opponent’s reply. Time.
February 7, 2006AI: Chapter 6: Adversarial Search1 Artificial Intelligence Chapter 6: Adversarial Search Michael Scherger Department of Computer Science.
Games & Adversarial Search
ICS-271:Notes 6: 1 Notes 6: Game-Playing ICS 271 Fall 2008.
Adversarial Search Chapter 5.
Adversarial Search CSE 473 University of Washington.
MINIMAX SEARCH AND ALPHA- BETA PRUNING: PLAYER 1 VS. PLAYER 2.
An Introduction to Artificial Intelligence Lecture VI: Adversarial Search (Games) Ramin Halavati In which we examine problems.
1 Adversarial Search Chapter 6 Section 1 – 4 The Master vs Machine: A Video.
Minimax and Alpha-Beta Reduction Borrows from Spring 2006 CS 440 Lecture Slides.
Abstract Proof Search Studied by Tristan Cazenave Surveyed by Akihiro Kishimoto.
Search for Transitive Connections Ling Zhao University of Alberta October 27, 2003 Author: T. Cazenave and B. Helmstetter published in JCIS'03.
Game Playing CSC361 AI CSC361: Game Playing.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA Department of Computer Science and Engineering CSCE 580 Artificial Intelligence Ch.6: Adversarial Search Fall 2008 Marco Valtorta.
Generalized Threats Search Paper Review Paper Author: T. Cazenave Review by: A. Botea.
1 search CS 331/531 Dr M M Awais A* Examples:. 2 search CS 331/531 Dr M M Awais 8-Puzzle f(N) = g(N) + h(N)
Research Summary Adi Botea Computer Go Seminar, 29/09/2003.
How computers play games with you CS161, Spring ‘03 Nathan Sturtevant.
ICS-271:Notes 6: 1 Notes 6: Game-Playing ICS 271 Fall 2006.
Go Meeting Talk1 Generation of Patterns with External Conditions for the Game of Go Paper presentation
1 Solving Ponnuki-Go on Small Board Paper: Solving Ponnuki-Go on small board Authors: Erik van der Werf, Jos Uiterwijk, Jaap van den Herik Presented by:
Adversarial Search: Game Playing Reading: Chess paper.
Games & Adversarial Search Chapter 6 Section 1 – 4.
Multipurpose Adversary Planning in the Game of Go Ph.D thesis by Shui Hu Presenter: Ling Zhao Date: November 18, 2002.
Game Playing: Adversarial Search Chapter 6. Why study games Fun Clear criteria for success Interesting, hard problems which require minimal “initial structure”
Game Playing State-of-the-Art  Checkers: Chinook ended 40-year-reign of human world champion Marion Tinsley in Used an endgame database defining.
Game Trees: MiniMax strategy, Tree Evaluation, Pruning, Utility evaluation Adapted from slides of Yoonsuck Choe.
Dr Edward De Bono’s Thinking Hats
(Classical) AI Planning. Some Examples Route search: Find a route between Lehigh University and the Naval Research Laboratory Project management: Construct.
Techniques for Analysis and Calibration of Multi- Agent Simulations Manuel Fehler Franziska Klügl Frank Puppe Universität Würzburg Lehrstuhl für Künstliche.
Traditional game playing 2 player adversarial (win => lose) based on search but... huge game trees can't be fully explored.
Chapter 6 Adversarial Search. Adversarial Search Problem Initial State Initial State Successor Function Successor Function Terminal Test Terminal Test.
Game-playing AIs Part 1 CIS 391 Fall CSE Intro to AI 2 Games: Outline of Unit Part I (this set of slides)  Motivation  Game Trees  Evaluation.
Adversarial Search Chapter 6 Section 1 – 4. Outline Optimal decisions α-β pruning Imperfect, real-time decisions.
Games. Adversaries Consider the process of reasoning when an adversary is trying to defeat our efforts In game playing situations one searches down the.
1 Adversarial Search CS 171/271 (Chapter 6) Some text and images in these slides were drawn from Russel & Norvig’s published material.
CSCI 4310 Lecture 6: Adversarial Tree Search. Book Winston Chapter 6.
GAME PLAYING 1. There were two reasons that games appeared to be a good domain in which to explore machine intelligence: 1.They provide a structured task.
Adversarial Search Chapter Games vs. search problems "Unpredictable" opponent  specifying a move for every possible opponent reply Time limits.
Lecture 2: 11/4/1435 Problem Solving Agents Lecturer/ Kawther Abas 363CS – Artificial Intelligence.
(Classical) AI Planning. General-Purpose Planning: State & Goals Initial state: (on A Table) (on C A) (on B Table) (clear B) (clear C) Goals: (on C Table)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (CS 461D) Princess Nora University Faculty of Computer & Information Systems.
Explorations in Artificial Intelligence Prof. Carla P. Gomes Module 5 Adversarial Search (Thanks Meinolf Sellman!)
Search Control.. Planning is really really hard –Theoretically, practically But people seem ok at it What to do…. –Abstraction –Find “easy” classes of.
Adversarial Search Chapter 5 Sections 1 – 4. AI & Expert Systems© Dr. Khalid Kaabneh, AAU Outline Optimal decisions α-β pruning Imperfect, real-time decisions.
ADVERSARIAL SEARCH Chapter 6 Section 1 – 4. OUTLINE Optimal decisions α-β pruning Imperfect, real-time decisions.
Understanding AI of 2 Player Games. Motivation Not much experience in AI (first AI project) and no specific interests/passion that I wanted to explore.
The Game of Hex A Domain Specific Search Technique For A Beautiful Game Stefan Kiefer.
Game Playing Why do AI researchers study game playing?
Announcements Homework 1 Full assignment posted..
SNS College of Engineering Department of Computer Science and Engineering AI Planning Presented By S.Yamuna AP/CSE 5/23/2018 AI.
D1 Miwa Makoto Chikayama & Taura Lab
David Kauchak CS52 – Spring 2016
Games & Adversarial Search
Adversarial Search.
Tutorial 5 Adversary Search
Search.
Search.
Games & Adversarial Search
Adversarial Search CS 171/271 (Chapter 6)
Adversarial Search Game Theory.
CS51A David Kauchak Spring 2019
Adversarial Search Chapter 6 Section 1 – 4.
Presentation transcript:

An Adversarial Planning Approach to Go Paper Authors: S. Willmott, J. Richardson, A. Bundy, J. Levine Presentation Author: A. Botea

Outline ● Motivation ● Data Driven Search vs. Goal Driven Driven ● HTN Planning ● Adversarial Planning ● Example ● GOBI - An Adversarial Go Planner ● Experimental Results ● Discussion & Conclusion

Motivation ● Classical Heuristic Search: – Successful in games such as Chess, Checkers, Othello... – Not enough in GoSO... ● Other approaches (e.g., planning) should be tried

Data & Goals ● Data Driven Search – Normal heuristic search framework – Search tree with game positions as nodes ● Goal Driven Search – Agenda of abstract goals to be achieved – Search is focused on achieving a certain goal – HTN planning (single agent planning) – Adversarial planning (multi-agent planning)

Example - Rush Hour ● Data driven approach: – (ID)A* ● Goal driven approach: – Get red car out – Move blue car ● Move green car – Move yellow car ● Move light-blue car –...

HTN Planning ● Hierarchical planning approach ● Three types of objects: – Abstract goals – Atomic operators – Plan schemas ● Used to expand abstract goals ● G = G 1 & G 2 & G 3 ● Use objects to build an AND/OR tree

HTN Planning Tree ● AND nodes are abstract goals ● OR nodes are schemas ● Operators can modify current world (i.e., change value of low- level features)

Adversarial Planning ● Extends HTN planning to a 2- player framework ● Two agents: Alpha & Beta – Each has an agenda of open goals ● Initialized with abstract goals such as win or kill or live; – Take control over resources alternatively – Agents' actions change the world

Flow of Resource Control

Plan Refinement

Contingence Tree

Example ● Alpha (black): – Kill-group ● Surround-group & ● Squeeze-space & ● Prevent-eye-formation ● Beta (white): – Save-group ● Make-eye-space ● Make-eyes

GOBI - An Adversarial Go Planner ● 1400 lines of code in Common Lisp ● Focused on life & death ● Knowledge base: 45 goals at 5 different abstraction levels ● Test suite: 85 problems from Graded Go Problems for Beginners, vol I – GOBI solves 74% of them

Knowldge Base - Example

Goal Driven Approach - Advantages ● Representation and communication of domain knowledge – Easy to encode knowledge such as: ● death lies in the hane or ● Don't push along the fifth line ● Search properties – No heuristic evaluator needed – Quiesence is defined automatically – Heuristically bad moves (e.g., sacrifices) are not discriminated ● Search is focused on well defined goals

Goal Driven Approach - Disadvantages ● Encoding strategies as goal decompositions is costly ● Hard to express certain knowledge – e.g., how to express patterns in terms of abstract goals? ==> combination of data-driven and goal- driven approaches is a good idea ● Less efficient than Data Driven Approach in domains with shallow search trees

Conclusion ● Presented an adversarial planning framework as an alternative to data-driven solving approach ● Application domain: Go ● GOBI - tsume-go planner based on this framework