CS 188: Artificial Intelligence

Search with Other Agents

Instructor: Evgeny Pobachienko

University of California, Berkeley

[These slides adapted from Dan Klein, Pieter Abbeel, Anca Dragan, Stuart Russell, and many others]
Behavior from Computation

[Demo: mystery pacman (L6D1)]

 Types of Games
o Many different kinds of games!

o Axes:
o Deterministic or stochastic?
o One, two, or more players?
o Zero sum?
o Perfect information (can you see the state)?
 Types of Games

o General Games o Zero-Sum Games

o Agents have independent utilities (values o Agents have opposite utilities
on outcomes) (values on outcomes)
o Cooperation, indifference, competition, o Lets us think of a single value that
and more are all possible one maximizes and the other
o We don’t make AI to act in isolation, it should a) minimizes
work around people and b) help people o Adversarial, pure competition
o That means that every AI agent needs to solve a
game
 Zero-Sum Games 
o Checkers
o (1950): First computer player.
o (1994): First computer champion: Chinook
ended 40-year-reign of human champion
Marion Tinsley using complete 8-piece
endgame.
o (2007): Checkers solved!

o Chess
o (1997): Deep Blue defeats human champion
Gary Kasparov in a six-game match. Current
programs are even better, if less historic.

o Go
o (2016): AlphaGo defeats human champion Lee
Sedol. Uses Monte Carlo Tree Search, learned
evaluation function.
 Deterministic Games with Terminal
Utilities
o Many possible formalizations, one is:
o States: S (start at s0)
o Players: P = {1...N} (usually take turns)
o Actions: A (may depend on player / state)
o Transition Function: S x A  S
o Terminal Test: S  {t, f}
o Terminal Utilities: S x P  R

o Solution for a player is a policy: S  A

Adversarial Games
Adversarial Search
 Single-Agent Trees

2 0 … 2 6 … 4 6
 Value of a State
Value of a state: Non-Terminal States:
The best achievable
outcome (utility)
from that state

2 0 … 2 6 … 4 6
Terminal States:
 Adversarial Game Trees

-20 -8 … -18 -5 … -10 +4 -20 +8

 Minimax Values
States Under Agent’s Control: States Under Opponent’s Control:

-8 -5 -10 +8

Terminal States:
Tic-Tac-Toe Game Tree
 Adversarial Search (Minimax)
o Deterministic, zero-sum games: Minimax values:
computed recursively
o Tic-tac-toe, chess, checkers
o One player maximizes result 5 max
o The other minimizes result

2 5 min
o Minimax search:
o A state-space search tree
o Players alternate turns
o Compute each node’s minimax 8 2 5 6
value: the best achievable
utility against a rational Terminal values:
part of the game
(optimal) adversary
 Minimax Implementation (Dispatch)
def value(state):
if the state is terminal: return the state’s utility
if the next agent is MAX: return max-
value(state)
if the next agent is MIN: return min-value(state)

def max-value(state): def min-value(state):

initialize v = -∞ initialize v = +∞
for each successor of state: for each successor of state:
v = max(v, value(successor)) v = min(v, value(successor))
return v return v
 Minimax Example

3 2 2

3 12 8 2 4 6 14 5 2
 Minimax Properties

max

min

10 10 9 100

Optimal against a perfect player.

Otherwise?
 Minimax Efficiency
o How efficient is minimax?
o Just like (exhaustive) DFS
o Time: O(bm)
o Space: O(bm)

o Example: For chess, b  35, m

 100
o Exact solution is completely
infeasible
o But, do we need to explore the
whole tree?
Game Tree Pruning
Minimax Example: Metareasoning

3 >=3

3 <=2 2

3 12 8 2 14 5 2
 Alpha-Beta Implementation

α: MAX’s best option on path to root

β: MIN’s best option on path to root

def max-value(state, α, β): def min-value(state , α, β):

initialize v = -∞ initialize v = +∞
for each successor of state: for each successor of state:
v = max(v, value(successor, α, β)) v = min(v, value(successor, α, β))
if v ≥ β return v if v ≤ α return v
α = max(α, v) β = min(β, v)
return v return v
Why on Path?

MAX

MIN a

MAX

MIN n

24
 Alpha-Beta Pruning Properties
o This pruning has no effect on minimax value computed for the root!

o Values of intermediate nodes might be wrong

o Important: children of the root may have the wrong value max
o So the most naïve version won’t let you do action selection

min
o Good child ordering improves effectiveness of pruning

o With “perfect ordering”:

o Time complexity drops to O(bm/2)
10 10 0
o Doubles solvable depth!
o Full search of, e.g. chess, is still hopeless…

o This is a simple example of metareasoning (computing about what to

compute)
Alpha-Beta Quiz
Alpha-Beta Quiz 2

2
Alpha-Beta Quiz 2

2
 Alpha-Beta Quiz 2

10
<=2

>=100 2
10
Resource Limits
 Resource Limits
o Problem: In realistic games, cannot search to max
4
leaves!
-2 4 min
o Solution: Depth-limited search
o Instead, search only to a limited depth in the tree -1 -2 4 9
o Replace terminal utilities with an evaluation function
for non-terminal positions
o Example:
o Suppose we have 100 seconds, can explore 10K nodes
/ sec
o So can check 1M nodes per move
o - reaches about depth 8 – decent chess program

o Guarantee of optimal play is gone

o More plies makes a BIG difference ? ? ? ?

o Use iterative deepening for an anytime

 Depth Matters
o Evaluation functions are
always imperfect
o The deeper in the tree the
evaluation function is
buried, the less the quality
of the evaluation function
matters
o An important example of
the tradeoff between
complexity of features and
complexity of computation
[Demo: depth limited (L6D4, L6D5)]
Video of Demo Limited Depth (2)
Video of Demo Limited Depth (10)
Evaluation Functions
 Evaluation Functions
o Evaluation functions score non-terminals in depth-limited search

o Ideal function: returns the actual minimax value of the position

o In practice: typically weighted linear sum of features:

o e.g. f1(s) = (num white queens – num black queens), etc.

 Evaluation for Pacman

[Demo: thrashing d=2, thrashing d=2 (fixed evaluation function), smart ghosts coordinate (L6D6,7,8,10)]
Video of Demo Thrashing (d=2)
 Why Pacman Starves

o A danger of replanning agents!

o He knows his score will go up by eating the dot now (west, east)
o He knows his score will go up just as much by eating the dot later (east,
west)
o There are no point-scoring opportunities after eating the dot (within the
horizon, two here)
o Therefore, waiting seems just as good as eating: he may go east, then
Video of Demo Thrashing -- Fixed (d=2)
Video of Demo Smart Ghosts
(Coordination)
Video of Demo Smart Ghosts (Coordination) –
Zoomed In
Other Game Types
 Multi-Agent Utilities
o What if the game is not zero-sum, or has multiple
players?
o Generalization of minimax:
o Terminals have utility tuples
o Node values are also utility tuples
o Each player maximizes its own component
o Can give rise to cooperation and
competition dynamically…
1,6,6

1,6,6 7,1,2 6,1,2 7,2,1 5,1,7 1,5,2 7,7,1 5,2,5

Uncertain Outcomes
 Worst-Case vs. Average Case

max

min

10 10 9 100

Idea: Uncertain outcomes controlled by chance, not an adversary!

 Why not minimax?
o Worst case reasoning is too conservative
o Need average case reasoning
 Expectimax Search
o Why wouldn’t we know what the result of an action
will be? max
o Explicit randomness: rolling dice
o Unpredictable opponents: the ghosts respond
randomly
o Unpredictable humans: humans are not perfect chance
o Actions can fail: when moving a robot, wheels might
slip
o Values should now reflect average-case
(expectimax) outcomes, not worst-case (minimax) 10 10
4 5
9 100
7
outcomes
o Expectimax search: compute the average score
under optimal play
o Max nodes as in minimax search
o Chance nodes are like min nodes but the outcome is
uncertain
o Calculate their expected utilities
o I.e. take weighted average (expectation) of children
Video of Demo Minimax vs Expectimax
(Min)
Video of Demo Minimax vs Expectimax
(Exp)
 Expectimax Pseudocode

def value(state):
if the state is a terminal state: return the
state’s utility
if the next agent is MAX: return max-
value(state)
if the next agent is EXP: return exp-
value(state)
def max-value(state): def exp-value(state):
initialize v = -∞ initialize v = 0
for each successor of state: for each successor of state:
v = max(v, value(successor)) p=
return v probability(successor)
v += p * value(successor)
return v
 Expectimax Pseudocode

def exp-value(state):
initialize v = 0
for each successor of state: 1/2 1/6
p= 1/3
probability(successor)
v += p * value(successor) 5
8 24
7 -12
return v

v = (1/2) (8) + (1/3) (24) + (1/6) (-12) = 10

 Expectimax Example

3 12 9 2 4 6 15 6 0
 Expectimax Pruning?

3 12 9 2
Depth-Limited Expectimax

Estimate of true
400 300 …expectimax value
(which would
require a lot of
… work to compute)

492 362 …
 What Probabilities to Use?
o In expectimax search, we have a
probabilistic model of how the
opponent (or environment) will
behave in any state
o Model could be a simple uniform
distribution (roll a die)
o Model could be sophisticated and require
a great deal of computation
o We have a chance node for any outcome
out of our control: opponent or
environment
o The model might say that adversarial
actions are likely!
o For now, assume each chance node
magically comes along with Having a probabilistic belief
probabilities that specify the about another agent’s action
distribution over its outcomes does not mean that the agent is
flipping any coins!
 Quiz: Informed Probabilities
o Let’s say you know that your opponent is actually running a depth 2
minimax, using the result 80% of the time, and moving randomly
otherwise
o Question: What tree search should you use?
 Answer: Expectimax!
 To figure out EACH chance node’s probabilities,
you have to run a simulation of your opponent
 This kind of thing gets very slow very quickly
0.1 0.9  Even worse if you have to simulate your
opponent simulating you…
 … except for minimax and maximax, which have
the nice property that it all collapses into one
game tree
This is basically how you would model a human, except for their utility: their utility might be the same as yours (i.e. you try
to help them, but they are depth 2 and noisy), or they might have a slightly different utility (like another person navigating
in the office)
Modeling Assumptions
The Dangers of Optimism and Pessimism
Dangerous Optimism Dangerous Pessimism
Assuming chance when the world is adversarial Assuming the worst case when it’s not likely
 Assumptions vs. Reality

Adversarial Ghost Random Ghost

Minimax Won 5/5 Won 5/5

Pacman Avg. Score: 483 Avg. Score: 493

Expectimax Won 1/5 Won 5/5

Pacman Avg. Score: -303 Avg. Score: 503

Results from playing 5 games

Pacman used depth 4 search with an eval function that avoids trouble
Ghost used depth 2 search with an eval function that seeks Pacman
[Demos: world assumptions (L7D3,4,5,6)]
 Assumptions vs. Reality

Adversarial Ghost Random Ghost

Minimax Won 5/5 Won 5/5

Pacman Avg. Score: 483 Avg. Score: 493

Expectimax Won 1/5 Won 5/5

Pacman Avg. Score: -303 Avg. Score: 503

Results from playing 5 games

Pacman used depth 4 search with an eval function that avoids trouble
Ghost used depth 2 search with an eval function that seeks Pacman
[Demos: world assumptions (L7D3,4,5,6)]
 Video of Demo World Assumptions
Random Ghost – Expectimax Pacman
 Video of Demo World Assumptions
Adversarial Ghost – Minimax Pacman
 Video of Demo World Assumptions
Adversarial Ghost – Expectimax Pacman
Video of Demo World Assumptions
Random Ghost – Minimax Pacman
 Mixed Layer Types
o E.g.
Backgammon
o Expectiminimax
o Environment is
an extra “random
agent” player
that moves after
each min/max
agent
o Each node
computes the
appropriate
combination of
its children
 Example: Backgammon
o Dice rolls increase b: 21 possible rolls
with 2 dice
o Backgammon  20 legal moves
o Depth 2 = 20 x (21 x 20)3 = 1.2 x 109

o As depth increases, probability of

reaching a given search node shrinks
o So usefulness of search is diminished
o So limiting depth is less damaging
o But pruning is trickier…

o Historic AI: TDGammon uses depth-2

search + very good evaluation function +
reinforcement learning:
world-champion level play
st
 What Utility Values to Use?

0 40 20 30 x2 0 1600 400 900

x>y => f(x)>f(y) f(x) = Ax+B where A>0

o For worst-case minimax reasoning, evaluation function scale doesn’t matter
o We just want better states to have higher evaluations (get the ordering right)
o Minimax decisions are invariant with respect to monotonic transformations on
values
o Expectiminimax decisions are invariant with respect to positive affine
transformations
o Expectiminimax evaluation functions have to be aligned with actual win probabilities!
72
 Monte Carlo Tree Search
o Methods based on alpha-beta search assume a fixed
horizon
o Pretty hopeless for Go, with b > 300
o MCTS combines two important ideas:
o Evaluation by rollouts – play multiple games to
termination from a state s (using a simple, fast rollout
policy) and count wins and losses
o Selective search – explore parts of the tree that will
help improve the decision at the root, regardless of depth
 Rollouts
“Move 37”

o For each rollout:

o Repeat until terminal:
o Play a move according to a
fixed, fast rollout policy
o Record the result
o Fraction of wins
correlates with the true
value of the position!
o Having a “better”
rollout policy helps
 MCTS Version 0
o Do N rollouts from each child of the root, record
fraction of wins
o Pick the move that gives the best outcome by this
metric

57/100 39/100 65/100

 MCTS Simple Version
o Do N rollouts from each child of the root, record
fraction of wins
o Pick the move that gives the best outcome by this
metric

57/100 0/100 59/100

 MCTS
o Allocate rollouts to more promising nodes

77/140 0/10 90/150

 MCTS
o Allocate rollouts to more promising nodes

61/100 6/10 48/100

 MCTS Version 1
o Allocate rollouts to more promising nodes
o Allocate rollouts to more uncertain nodes

61/100 6/10 48/100

 UCB heuristics
o UCB1 formula combines “promising” and “uncertain”:

o N(n) = number of rollouts from node n

o U(n) = total utility of rollouts (e.g., # wins) for
Player(Parent(n))

80
 MCTS Version 2: UCT
o Repeat until out of time:
o Given the current search tree, recursively apply UCB to
choose a path down to a leaf (not fully expanded) node n
o Add a new child c to n and run a rollout from c
o Update the win counts from c back up to the root
o Choose the action leading to the child with highest
N

81
 UCT Example
5/10 4/9

4/7 1/2 0/1 0/1

2/3 0/2 2/2 1/2

82
 Why is there no min or max?????
o “Value” of a node, U(n)/N(n), is a weighted sum of
child values!
o Idea: as N   , the vast majority of rollouts are
concentrated in the best children, so weighted
average  max/min
o Theorem: as N   UCT selects the minimax move
o (but N never approaches infinity!)

83
 Summary
o Games require decisions when optimality is impossible
o Bounded-depth search and approximate evaluation functions
o Games force efficient use of computation
o Alpha-beta pruning, MCTS
o Game playing has produced important research ideas
o Reinforcement learning (checkers)
o Iterative deepening (chess)
o Rational metareasoning (Othello)
o Monte Carlo tree search (chess, Go)
o Solution methods for partial-information games in economics (poker)
o Video games present much greater challenges – lots to do!
o b = 10500, |S| = 104000, m = 10,000, partially observable, often > 2 players