I have implemented a version of Rush Hour (the puzzle board game) in Python as a demonstration of some AI algorithms. The game isn't important, because the AI is relatively independent of its details: I've attempted to implement a version of iterative deepening depth first search in Python as follows (note that this code is almost directly copied from Russell and Norvig's AI text, 3rd edition, for those of you who know it):
def depth_limited_search(game, limit):
node = GameNode(game)
frontier = []
#frontier = Queue.Queue()
frontier.append(node)
#frontier.put(node)
frontier_hash_set = set()
frontier_hash_set.add(str(node.state))
explored = set()
cutoff = False
while True:
if len(frontier) == 0:
#if frontier.empty():
break
node = frontier.pop()
#node = frontier.get()
frontier_hash_set.remove(str(node.state))
explored.add(str(node.state))
if node.cost > limit:
cutoff = True
else:
for action in node.state.get_actions():
child = node.result(action)
if str(child.state) not in frontier_hash_set and str(child.state) not in explored:
if child.goal_test():
show_solution(child)
return child.cost
frontier.append(child)
#frontier.put(child)
frontier_hash_set.add(str(child.state))
if cutoff:
return 'Cutoff'
else:
return None
def iterative_deepening_search(game):
depth = 0
while True:
result = depth_limited_search(game, depth)
if result != 'Cutoff':
return result
depth += 1
The search algorithm, as implemented, does return an answer in a reasonable amount of time. The problem is that the answer is non-optimal. My test board of choice has an optimal answer in 8 moves, however this algorithm returns one using 10 moves. If i replace the lines above commented out lines with the commented lines, effectively turning the iterative deepening depth-first search into an iterative deepening breadth-first search, the algorithm DOES return optimal answers!
I've been staring at this for a long time now trying to figure out how a simple change in traversal order could result in nonoptimality, and I'm unable to figure it out. Any help pointing out my stupid error would be greatly appreciated
In short: DFS is not guaranteed to find an optimal path; iterative deepening is. DFS may explore the entire graph before finding the target node; iterative deepening only does this if the distance between the start and end node is the maximum in the graph.
Disadvantages. The time taken is exponential to reach the goal node. The main problem with IDDFS is the time and wasted calculations that take place at each depth.
D. Answer» c. it's a depth first search, but it does it one level at a time, gradually increasing the limit, until a goal is found.
IDDFS is optimal like breadth-first search, but uses much less memory; at each iteration, it visits the nodes in the search tree in the same order as depth-first search, but the cumulative order in which nodes are first visited is effectively breadth-first.
I can't test this but I think the problem is this predicate:
if str(child.state) not in frontier_hash_set and \
str(child.state) not in explored:
The problem is that earlier in this DFS iteration, child.state
may have been inserted into the frontier or set of visited states, but with a greater cost.
S -> A -> B -> C -> G
\ /
\-----> D -/
Obviously you will not reach the goal with limit < 3. But when limit = 3, your DFS may first visit A, B, and C. Then when it backtracks to S, visits D, and tries to visit C, it will not push C onto the stack because you visited it earlier.
To fix this, I believe you need to "un-visit" states as you backtrack. Implementation-wise it is probably easiest to write your algorithm recursively and pass copies of your explored-state set in a functional style.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With