The game of Go has long been viewed as the most challenging of classic games for artificial intelligence owing to its enormous search space and the difficulty of evaluating board positions and moves. Here we introduce a new approach to computer Go that uses ‘value networks’ to evaluate board positions and ‘policy networks’ to select moves. These deep neural networks are trained by a novel combination of supervised learning from human expert games, and reinforcement learning from games of self-play. Without any lookahead search, the neural networks play Go at the level of stateof-the-art Monte Carlo tree search programs that simulate thousands of random games of self-play. We also introduce a new search algorithm that combines Monte Carlo simulation with value and policy networks. Using this search algorithm, our program AlphaGo achieved a 99.8% winning rate against other Go programs, and defeated the human European Go champion by 5 games to 0. This is the first time that a computer program has defeated a human professional player in the full-sized game of Go, a feat previously thought to be at least a decade away.

/pdf/mastering-the-game-of-go-with-deep-neural-networks-and-tree-3viuxo6uxm.pdf

Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search

Machine Learning is the study of methods for programming computers to learn. Computers are applied to a wide range of tasks, and for most of these it is relatively easy for programmers to design and implement the necessary software. However, there are many tasks for which this is difficult or impossible. These can be divided into four general categories. First, there are problems for which there exist no human experts. For example, in modern automated manufacturing facilities, there is a need to predict machine failures before they occur by analyzing sensor readings. Because the machines are new, there are no human experts who can be interviewed by a programmer to provide the knowledge necessary to build a computer system. A machine learning system can study recorded data and subsequent machine failures and learn prediction rules. Second, there are problems where human experts exist, but where they are unable to explain their expertise. This is the case in many perceptual tasks, such as speech recognition, hand-writing recognition, and natural language understanding. Virtually all humans exhibit expert-level abilities on these tasks, but none of them can describe the detailed steps that they follow as they perform them. Fortunately, humans can provide machines with examples of the inputs and correct outputs for these tasks, so machine learning algorithms can learn to map the inputs to the outputs. Third, there are problems where phenomena are changing rapidly. In finance, for example, people would like to predict the future behavior of the stock market, of consumer purchases, or of exchange rates. These behaviors change frequently, so that even if a programmer could construct a good predictive computer program, it would need to be rewritten frequently. A learning program can relieve the programmer of this burden by constantly modifying and tuning a set of learned prediction rules. Fourth, there are applications that need to be customized for each computer user separately. Consider, for example, a program to filter unwanted electronic mail messages. Different users will need different filters. It is unreasonable to expect each user to program his or her own rules, and it is infeasible to provide every user with a software engineer to keep the rules up-to-date. A machine learning system can learn which mail messages the user rejects and maintain the filtering rules automatically. Machine learning addresses many of the same research questions as the fields of statistics, data mining, and psychology, but with differences of emphasis. Statistics focuses on understanding the phenomena that have generated the data, often with the goal of testing different hypotheses about those phenomena. Data mining seeks to find patterns in the data that are understandable by people. Psychological studies of human learning aspire to understand the mechanisms underlying the various learning behaviors exhibited by people (concept learning, skill acquisition, strategy change, etc.).

Machine learning

Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) is a recently proposed search method that combines the precision of tree search with the generality of random sampling. It has received considerable interest due to its spectacular success in the difficult problem of computer Go, but has also proved beneficial in a range of other domains. This paper is a survey of the literature to date, intended to provide a snapshot of the state of the art after the first five years of MCTS research. We outline the core algorithm's derivation, impart some structure on the many variations and enhancements that have been proposed, and summarize the results from the key game and nongame domains to which MCTS methods have been applied. A number of open research questions indicate that the field is ripe for future work.

/pdf/a-survey-of-monte-carlo-tree-search-methods-2mj9olkdni.pdf

A Survey of Monte Carlo Tree Search Methods

Cooperative multi-agent systems (MAS) are ones in which several agents attempt, through their interaction, to jointly solve tasks or to maximize utility. Due to the interactions among the agents, multi-agent problem complexity can rise rapidly with the number of agents or their behavioral sophistication. The challenge this presents to the task of programming solutions to MAS problems has spawned increasing interest in machine learning techniques to automate the search and optimization process. We provide a broad survey of the cooperative multi-agent learning literature. Previous surveys of this area have largely focused on issues common to specific subareas (for example, reinforcement learning, RL or robotics). In this survey we attempt to draw from multi-agent learning work in a spectrum of areas, including RL, evolutionary computation, game theory, complex systems, agent modeling, and robotics. We find that this broad view leads to a division of the work into two categories, each with its own special issues: applying a single learner to discover joint solutions to multi-agent problems (team learning), or using multiple simultaneous learners, often one per agent (concurrent learning). Additionally, we discuss direct and indirect communication in connection with learning, plus open issues in task decomposition, scalability, and adaptive dynamics. We conclude with a presentation of multi-agent learning problem domains, and a list of multi-agent learning resources.

/pdf/cooperative-multi-agent-learning-the-state-of-the-art-4jmhlfb1be.pdf

Cooperative Multi-Agent Learning: The State of the Art

Communications of the ACM (CACM for short, not the best sounding acronym around) is the ACM’s flagship magazine. Started in 1957, CACM is handy for keeping up to date on current research being carried out across all topics of computer science and realworld applications. CACM has had an illustrious past with many influential pieces of work and debates started within its pages. These include Hoare’s presentation of the Quicksort algorithm; Rivest, Shamir and Adleman’s description of the first publickey cryptosystem RSA; and Dijkstra’s famous letter against the use of GOTO. In addition to the print edition, which is released monthly, there is a fantastic website (http://cacm.acm. org/) that showcases not only the most recent edition but all previous CACM articles as well, readable online as well as downloadable as a PDF. In addition, the website lets you browse for articles by subject, a handy feature if you want to focus on a particular topic. CACM is really essential reading. Pretty much guaranteed to contain content that is interesting to anyone, it keeps tabs on the latest in computer science. It is a valuable asset for us students, who tend to delve deep into a particular area of CS and forget everything that is happening around us. — Daniel Gooch U ndergraduate research is like a box of chocolates: You never know what kind of project you will get. That being said, there are still a few things you should know to get the most out of the experience.

Communications of the ACM

In the multi agent path finding problem (MAPF) paths should be found for several agents, each with a different start and goal position such that agents do not collide. Previous optimal solvers applied global A*-based searches. We present a new search algorithm called Conflict Based Search (CBS). CBS is a two-level algorithm. At the high level, a search is performed on a tree based on conflicts between agents. At the low level, a search is performed only for a single agent at a time. In many cases this reformulation enables CBS to examine fewer states than A* while still maintaining optimality. We analyze CBS and show its benefits and drawbacks. Experimental results on various problems shows a speedup of up to a full order of magnitude over previous approaches.

Conflict-based search for optimal multi-agent path finding

The study of algorithms on grids has been widespread in a number of research areas. Grids are easy to implement and offer fast memory access. Because of their simplicity, they are used even in commercial video games. But, the evaluation of work on grids has been inconsistent between different papers. Many research papers use different problem sets, making it difficult to compare results between papers. Furthermore, the performance characteristics of each test set are not necessarily obvious. This has motivated the creation of a standard test set of maps and problems on the maps that are open for all researchers to use. In addition to creating these sets, we use a variety of metrics to analyze the properties of the test sets. The goal is that these test sets will be useful to many researchers, making experimental results more comparable across papers, and improving the quality of research on grid-based domains.

Benchmarks for Grid-Based Pathfinding

https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI12/paper/viewFile/5062/5239

Conflict-based search for optimal multi-agent pathfinding

The MAPF problem is the fundamental problem of planning paths for multiple agents, where the key constraint is that the agents will be able to follow these paths concurrently without colliding with each other. Applications of MAPF include automated warehouses and autonomous vehicles. Research on MAPF has been flourishing in the past couple of years. Different MAPF research papers make different assumptions, e.g., whether agents can traverse the same road at the same time, and have different objective functions, e.g., minimize makespan or sum of agents' actions costs. These assumptions and objectives are sometimes implicitly assumed or described informally. This makes it difficult to establish appropriate baselines for comparison in research papers, as well as making it difficult for practitioners to find the papers relevant to their concrete application. This paper aims to fill this gap and support researchers and practitioners by providing a unifying terminology for describing common MAPF assumptions and objectives. In addition, we also provide pointers to two MAPF benchmarks. In particular, we introduce a new grid-based benchmark for MAPF, and demonstrate experimentally that it poses a challenge to contemporary MAPF algorithms.

Multi-Agent Pathfinding: Definitions, Variants, and Benchmarks

When solving instances of problem domains that feature a large branching factor, A* may generate a large number of nodes whose cost is greater than the cost of the optimal solution. We designate such nodes as surplus. Generating surplus nodes and adding them to the OPEN list may dominate both time and memory of the search. A recently introduced variant of A* called Partial Expansion A* (PEA*) deals with the memory aspect of this problem. When expanding a node n, PEA* generates all of its children and puts into OPEN only the children with f = f(n). n is reinserted in the OPEN list with the f-cost of the best discarded child. This guarantees that surplus nodes are not inserted into OPEN.

In this paper, we present a novel variant of A* called Enhanced Partial Expansion A* (EPEA*) that advances the idea of PEA* to address the time aspect. Given a priori domain-and heuristic-specific knowledge, EPEA* generates only the nodes with f = f(n). Although EPEA* is not always applicable or practical, we study several variants of EPEA*, which make it applicable to a large number of domains and heuristics. In particular, the ideas of EPEA* are applicable to IDA* and to the domains where pattern databases are traditionally used. Experimental studies show significant improvements in run-time and memory performance for several standard benchmark applications. We provide several theoretical studies to facilitate an understanding of the new algorithm.

/pdf/enhanced-partial-expansion-a-404hiigrhe.pdf

Nathan R. Sturtevant

Papers

Conflict-based search for optimal multi-agent path finding

Benchmarks for Grid-Based Pathfinding

Conflict-based search for optimal multi-agent pathfinding

Multi-Agent Pathfinding: Definitions, Variants, and Benchmarks

Enhanced partial expansion A