skip to main content
10.1145/1569901.1570032acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

GP-rush: using genetic programming to evolve solvers for the rush hour puzzle

Published:08 July 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

We evolve heuristics to guide IDA* search for the 6x6 and 8x8 versions of the Rush Hour puzzle, a PSPACE-Complete problem, for which no efficient solver has yet been reported. No effective heuristic functions are known for this domain, and--before applying any evolutionary thinking--we first devise several novel heuristic measures, which improve (non-evolutionary) search for some instances, but hinder search substantially for many other instances. We then turn to genetic programming (GP) and find that evolution proves immensely efficacious, managing to combine heuristics of such highly variable utility into composites that are nearly always beneficial, and far better than each separate component. GP is thus able to beat both the human player of the game and also the human designers of heuristics.

References

  1. R. Aler, D. Borrajo, and P. Isasi. Evolving heuristics for planning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1447:745--754, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. R. Aler, D. Borrajo, and P. Isasi. Learning to solve planning problems efficiently by means of genetic programming. Evolutionary Computation, 9(4):387--420, Winter 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. R. Aler, D. Borrajo, and P. Isasi. Using genetic programming to learn and improve knowledge. Artificial Intelligence, 141(1-2):29--56, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. D. Borrajo and M. M. Veloso. Lazy incremental learning of control knowledge for efficiently obtaining quality plans. Artif. Intell. Rev, 11(1-5):371--405, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. A. Botea, M. Muller, and J. Schaeffer. Using abstraction for planning in Sokoban. In CG: International Conference on Computers and Games. LNCS, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. S. Collette, J.-F. Raskin, and F. Servais. On the symbolic computation of the hardest configurations of the Rush Hour game. In Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Computers and Games, LNCS 4630, pages 220--233. Springer-Verlag, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. J. C. Culberson and J. Schaeffer. Searching with pattern databases. In G. McCalla, editor, Proceedings of the Eleventh Biennial Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence on Advances in Artificial Intelligence, volume 1081 of LNAI, pages 402--416, Berlin, May 21-24 1996. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. A. Felner, R. E. Korf, and S. Hanan. Additive pattern database heuristics. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR), 22:279--318, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. H. Fernau, T. Hagerup, N. Nishimura, P. Ragde, and K. Reinhardt. On the parameterized complexity of the generalized Rush Hour puzzle. In Canadian Conference on Computational Geometry, pages 6--9, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. G. W. Flake and E. B. Baum. Rush Hour is pspace-complete, or "why you should generously tip parking lot attendant". Theor. Comput. Sci., 270(1-2):895--911, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. P. W. Frey. Chess Skill in Man and Machine. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USA, 1979. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. O. Hansson, A. Mayer, and M. Yung. Criticizing solutions to relaxed models yields powerful admissible heuristics. Information Sciences, 63(3):207--227, Sept. 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. P. E. Hart, N. J. Nilsson, and B. Raphael. A formal basis for heuristic determination of minimum path cost. IEEE Trans. on SSC, 4:100, 1968.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. R. A. Hearn. Games, puzzles, and computation. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. R. A. Hearn and E. D. Demaine. Pspace-completeness of sliding-block puzzles and other problems through the nondeterministic constraint logic model of computation. Theoretical Computer Science, 343(1-2):72--96, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. A. Junghanns and J. Schaeffer. Sokoban: A challenging single-agent search problem. In IJCAI, pages 27--36. Universiteit, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. A. Junghanns and J. Schaeffer. Domain--dependent single--agent search enhancements. In T. Dean, editor, Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 99, Stockholm, Sweden, July 31 - August 6, 1999. 2 Volumes, 1450 pages, pages 570--577. Morgan Kaufmann, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. A. Junghanns and J. Schaeffer. Sokoban: Improving the search with relevance cuts. TCS: Theoretical Computer Science, 252, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. G. Kendall, A. Parkes, and K. Spoerer. A survey of NP-complete puzzles. International Computer Games Association Journal (ICGA), 31:13--34, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. R. E. Korf. Depth-first iterative-deepening: An optimal admissible tree search. Artificial Intelligence, 27(1):97--109, 1985. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. R. E. Korf. Macro-operators: a weak method for learning. Artificial Intelligence, 26:35--77, 1985. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. R. E. Korf. Finding optimal solutions to rubik's cube using pattern databases. In AAAI/IAAI, pages 700--705, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. R. E. Korf and A. Felner. Disjoint pattern database heuristics. AIJ: Artificial Intelligence, 134, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. J. R. Koza. Genetic Programming II: Automatic Discovery of Reusable Programs. MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, May 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. J. Levine and D. Humphreys. Learning action strategies for planning domains using genetic programming. In G. R. Raidl, J.-A. Meyer, M. Middendorf, S. Cagnoni, J. J. R. Cardalda, D. Corne, J. Gottlieb, A. Guillot, E. Hart, C. G. Johnson, and E. Marchiori, editors, EvoWorkshops, volume 2611 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 684--695. Springer, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. D. J. Montana. Strongly typed genetic programming. Evolutionary Computation, 3(2):199--230, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. J. Pearl. Heuristics. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1984.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. E. P. D. Pednault. Adl: exploring the middle ground between strips and the situation calculus. In Proceedings of the first international conference on Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, pages 324--332, San Francisco, CA, USA, 1989. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. A. Reinefeld and T. A. Marsland. Enhanced iterative-deepening search. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 16(7):701--710, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. E. Robertson and I. Munro. NP-completeness, puzzles and games. Utilas Mathematica, 13:99--116, 1978.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. S. J. Russell and P. Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. F. Servais. Private communication.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. L. A. Taylor and R. E. Korf. Pruning duplicate nodes in depth-first search. In AAAI, pages 756--761, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. GP-rush: using genetic programming to evolve solvers for the rush hour puzzle

                Recommendations

                Comments

                Login options

                Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                Sign in
                • Published in

                  cover image ACM Conferences
                  GECCO '09: Proceedings of the 11th Annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation
                  July 2009
                  2036 pages
                  ISBN:9781605583259
                  DOI:10.1145/1569901

                  Copyright © 2009 ACM

                  Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                  Publisher

                  Association for Computing Machinery

                  New York, NY, United States

                  Publication History

                  • Published: 8 July 2009

                  Permissions

                  Request permissions about this article.

                  Request Permissions

                  Check for updates

                  Qualifiers

                  • research-article

                  Acceptance Rates

                  Overall Acceptance Rate1,669of4,410submissions,38%

                  Upcoming Conference

                  GECCO '24
                  Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
                  July 14 - 18, 2024
                  Melbourne , VIC , Australia

                PDF Format

                View or Download as a PDF file.

                PDF

                eReader

                View online with eReader.

                eReader