Set 3: Informed Heuristic Search

ICS 271 Fall 2014

Kalev Kask
 Overview
• Heuristics and Optimal search strategies
– heuristics
– hill-climbing algorithms
– Best-First search
– A*: optimal search using heuristics
– Properties of A*
• admissibility,
• consistency,
• accuracy and dominance
• Optimal efficiency of A*
– Branch and Bound
– Iterative deepening A*
– Automatic generation of heuristics

271-Fall 2014
 What is a heuristic?

271-Fall 2014
 Heuristic Search
• State-Space Search: every problem is like search of a map
• A problem solving robot finds a path in a state-space graph from start
state to goal state, using heuristics

h=374

h= 253

h=329

Heuristic = straight-line distance

271-Fall 2014
 State Space for Path Finding in a Map

271-Fall 2014
 State Space for Path Finding in a Map

271-Fall 2014
 Greedy Search Example

271-Fall 2014
 State Space of the 8 Puzzle
Problem 1 2 3
Initial state goal
8-puzzle: 181,440 states 4 5 6
15-puzzle: 1.3 trilion
7 8
24-puzzle: 10^25

Search space exponential

Use Heuristics
as people do

271-Fall 2014
 State Space of the 8 Puzzle
Problem 1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8
h1 = number of misplaced tiles

h2 = Manhattan distance
h1=4 h1=5

h2=9 h2=9

271-Fall 2014
 What are Heuristics
• Rule of thumb, intuition
• A quick way to estimate how close we are to the
goal. How close is a state to the goal..
• Pearl: “the ever-amazing observation of how much
people can accomplish with that simplistic, unreliable
information source known as intuition.”
8-puzzle
– h1(n): number of misplaced tiles h1(S) = ? 8
– h2(n): Manhattan distance h2(S) = ? 3+1+2+2+2+3+3+2 = 18

• Path-finding on a map
– Euclidean distance
Problem: Finding a Minimum Cost Path
• Previously we wanted an path with minimum number of
steps. Now, we want the minimum cost path to a goal G
– Cost of a path = sum of individual transitions along path
• Examples of path-cost:
– Navigation
• path-cost = distance to node in miles
– minimum => minimum time, least fuel

– VLSI Design
• path-cost = length of wires between chips
– minimum => least clock/signal delay

– 8-Puzzle
• path-cost = number of pieces moved
– minimum => least time to solve the puzzle
• Algorithm: Uniform-cost search… still somewhat blind

271-Fall 2014
 Heuristic Functions
• 8-puzzle
– Number of misplaced tiles
– Manhattan distance
– Gaschnig’s

• 8-queen
– Number of future feasible slots
– Min number of feasible slots in a
row
– Min number of conflicts (in
complete assignments states)
C
• Travelling salesperson
– Minimum spanning tree B
– Minimum assignment problem A D
F

E
 Best-First (Greedy) Search:
f(n) = number of misplaced tiles

271-Fall 2014
 Romania with Step Costs in km

271-Fall 2014
 Greedy Best-First Search
• Evaluation function f(n) = h(n) (heuristic)
= estimate of cost from n to goal

• e.g., hSLD(n) = straight-line distance from n to

Bucharest

• Greedy best-first search expands the node

that appears to be closest to goal
271-Fall 2014
 Greedy Best-First Search Example

271-Fall 2014
 Greedy Best-First Search Example

271-Fall 2014
 Greedy Best-First Search Example

271-Fall 2014
 Greedy Best-First Search Example

271-Fall 2014
 Problems with Greedy Search

• Not complete

– Get stuck on local minimas and plateaus

• Irrevocable
• Not optimal
• Infinite loops
• Can we incorporate heuristics in systematic
search?
271-Fall 2014
 Informed Search - Heuristic Search
• How to use heuristic knowledge in systematic search?
• Where ? (in node expansion? hill-climbing ?)
• Best-first:
– select the best from all the nodes encountered so far in OPEN.
– “good” use heuristics
• Heuristic estimates value of a node
– promise of a node
– difficulty of solving the subproblem
– quality of solution represented by node
– the amount of information gained.
• f(n)- heuristic evaluation function.
– depends on n, goal, search so far, domain

271-Fall 2014
 A* Search
• Idea:
– avoid expanding paths that are already expensive
– focus on paths that show promise

• Evaluation function f(n) = g(n) + h(n)

• g(n) = cost so far to reach n

• h(n) = estimated cost from n to goal

• f(n) = estimated total cost of path through n to goal

271-Fall 2014
 Best-First Algorithm BF (*)
1. Put the start node s on a list called OPEN of unexpanded nodes.
2. If OPEN is empty exit with failure; no solutions exists.
3. Remove the first OPEN node n at which f is minimum (break ties arbitrarily), and place it on a list called
CLOSED to be used for expanded nodes.
4. Expand node n, generating all it’s successors with pointers back to n.
5. If any of n’s successors is a goal node, exit successfully with the solution obtained by tracing the path
along the pointers from the goal back to s.
6. For every successor n’ on n:
a. Calculate f (n’).
b. if n’ was neither on OPEN nor on CLOSED, add it to OPEN. Attach a
pointer from n’ back to n. Assign the newly computed f(n’) to node n’.
c. if n’ already resided on OPEN or CLOSED, compare the newly
computed f(n’) with the value previously assigned to n’. If the old
value is lower, discard the newly generated node. If the new value is lower, substitute it for the old (n’
now points back to n instead of to its previous predecessor). If the matching node n’ resided on CLOSED,
move it back to OPEN.
7. Go to step 2.

* With tests for duplicate nodes.

271-Fall 2014
 A* Search Example

271-Fall 2014
 A* Search Example

271-Fall 2014
 A* Search Example

271-Fall 2014
 A* Search Example

271-Fall 2014
 A* Search Example

271-Fall 2014
 A* Search Example

271-Fall 2014
 A* on 8-Puzzle with h(n) = # misplaced tiles

271-Fall 2014
 A*- a Special Best-First Search
• Goal: find a minimum sum-cost path
• Notation:
– c(n,n’) - cost of arc (n,n’)
– g(n) = cost of current path from start to node n in the search tree.
– h(n) = estimate of the cheapest cost of a path from n to a goal.
– evaluation function: f = g+h
• f(n) estimates the cheapest cost solution path that goes through n.
– h*(n) is the true cheapest cost from n to a goal.
– g*(n) is the true shortest path from the start s, to n.
– C* is the cost of optimal solution.

• If the heuristic function, h always underestimates the true cost

(h(n) is smaller than h*(n)), then A* is guaranteed to find an
optimal solution.

271-Fall 2014
 1 4
A B C
2

S 2 5 G

5 3
2 4
D E F

A 10.4 B C
6.7 4.0

11.0 G
S

8.9 3.0
6.9
D E F
271-Fall 2014
 Example of A* Algorithm in Action
1
2 +10.4 = 12.4
S 5 + 8.9 = 13.9
2 D
3 + 6.7 = 9.7 A 5
B 3 D 4 + 8.9 = 12.9

7 + 4 = 11 4 8 + 6.9 = 14.9 6
C E 6 + 6.9 = 12.9
E
7
Dead End
B F 10 + 3.0 = 13
1 4 11 + 6.7 = 17.7
A B C 8
2 A10.4 B C
6.7 4.0 G
5 G 13 + 0 = 13
2
S S 11.0 G

5 3
2 4 8.9 3.0
D
271-Fall 2014 E F D E 6.9 F
 Algorithm A* (with any h on search Graph)
• Input: an implicit search graph problem with cost on the arcs
• Output: the minimal cost path from start node to a goal node.
– 1. Put the start node s on OPEN.
– 2. If OPEN is empty, exit with failure
– 3. Remove from OPEN and place on CLOSED a node n having minimum f.
– 4. If n is a goal node exit successfully with a solution path obtained by
tracing back the pointers from n to s.
– 5. Otherwise, expand n generating its children and directing pointers
from each child node to n.
• For every child node n’ do
– evaluate h(n’) and compute f(n’) = g(n’) +h(n’)= g(n)+c(n,n’)+h(n’)
– If n’ is already on OPEN or CLOSED compare its new f with the old f. If the
new value is higher, discard the node. Otherwise, replace old f with new f
and reopen the node.
– Else, put n’ with its f value in the right order in OPEN
– 6. Go to step 2.

271-Fall 2014
 Behavior of A -
Termination/Completeness

• Theorem (completeness) (Hart, Nilsson and Raphael, 1968)

– A* always terminates with a solution path (h is not necessarily
admissible) if
• costs on arcs are positive, above epsilon
• branching degree is finite.

• Proof: The evaluation function f of nodes expanded must

increase eventually (since paths are longer and more
costly) until all the nodes on a solution path are expanded.

271-Fall 2014
 Admissible A*
• The heuristic function h(n) is called admissible if h(n) is never
larger than h*(n), namely h(n) is always less or equal to true
cheapest cost from n to the goal.

• A* is admissible if it uses an admissible heuristic, and h(goal) = 0.

• If the heuristic function, h always underestimates the true cost

(h(n) is smaller than h*(n)), then A* is guaranteed to find an
optimal solution.

271-Fall 2014
 A* with inadmissible h

513=220+293

→293

271-Fall 2014
 Consistent (monotone) Heuristics
• A heuristic is consistent if for every node n, every successor n' of n generated by any action a,

h(n) ≤ c(n,a,n') + h(n')

• If h is consistent, we have

f(n') = g(n') + h(n')

= g(n) + c(n,a,n') + h(n')
≥ g(n) + h(n)
= f(n)

• i.e., f(n) is non-decreasing along any path.

• Theorem: If h(n) is consistent, f along any path is non-decreasing.

• Corollary: the f values seen by A* are non-decreasing.

271-Fall 2014
 Consistent Heuristics

• If h is consistent and h(goal)=0 then h is admissible

– Proof: (by induction of distance from the goal)

• An A* guided by consistent heuristic finds an optimal paths to

all expanded nodes, namely g(n) = g*(n) for any closed n.

– Proof: Assume g(n) > g*(n) and n expanded along a non-optimal path.
– Let n’ be the shallowest OPEN node on optimal path p to n 
– g(n’) = g*(n’) and therefor f(n’)=g*(n’)+h(n’)
– Due to consistency we get f(n’) <=g*(n’)+k(n’,n)+h(n)
– Since g*(n) = g*(n’)+k(n’,n) along the optimal path, we get that
– f(n’) <= g*(n) + h(n)
– And since g(n) > g*(n) then f(n’) < g(n)+h(n) = f(n), contradiction

271-Fall 2014
 Behavior of A* - Optimality
• Theorem (completeness for optimal solution) (HNL, 1968):
– If the heuristic function is
• admissible (tree search or graph search with explored node re-opening)
• Consistent (graph search w/o explored node re-opening)
– then A* finds an optimal solution.

• Proof:
– 1. A*(admissible/consistent) will expand only nodes whose f-values are
less (or equal) to the optimal cost path C* (f(n) is less-or-equal C*).
– 2. The evaluation function of a goal node along an optimal path equals
C*.
• Lemma:
– Anytime before A*(admissible/consistent) terminates there exists and
OPEN node n’ on an optimal path with f(n’) <= C*.

271-Fall 2014
 Inconsistent but admissible

Consistency : h(ni) <= c(ni,nj) + h(nj)

or c(ni,nj) >= h(ni) - h(nj)
or c(ni,nj) >= ∆h
271-Fall 2014
 A* with Consistent Heuristics
• A* expands nodes in order of increasing f value

• Gradually adds "f-contours" of nodes

• Contour i has all nodes with f=fi, where fi < fi+1

271-Fall 2014
 Summary of Consistent Heuristics
• h is consistent if the heuristic function satisfies triangle inequality for every n and
its child node n’: h(ni) <= h(nj) + c(ni,nj)

• When h is consistent, the f values of nodes expanded by A* are never decreasing.

• When A* selected n for expansion it already found the shortest path to it.
• When h is consistent every node is expanded once (no need to check for duplicates).
• Normally the heuristics we encounter are consistent
– the number of misplaced tiles
– Manhattan distance
– straight-line distance

271-Fall 2014
 Summary so far
• Best-First Search : f
• A* : f = g + h
• Admissible heuristic : h <= h*
• Consistent heuristic : h(ni) <= c(ni,nj) + h(nj)
• Optimality guaranteed if admissible/consistent

271-Fall 2014
 A* properties
• A* expands every path along which f(n) < C*

• A* will never expand any node such that f(n) > C*

• If h is consistent A* will expand any node such that f(n) < C*

• Therefore, A* expands all the nodes for which f(n) < C* and
a subset of the nodes for which f(n) = C*.

• Therefore, if h (n) < h (n) clearly the subset of nodes

1 2

expanded by h is smaller.
2

271-Fall 2014
 Complexity of A*
• A* is optimally efficient (Dechter and Pearl 1985):
– It can be shown that all algorithms that do not expand a node
which A* did expand (inside the contours) may miss an optimal
solution
• A* worst-case time complexity:
– is exponential unless the heuristic function is very accurate
• If h is exact (h = h*)
– search focus only on optimal paths
• Main problem: space complexity is exponential
• Effective branching factor:
– Number of nodes generated by a “typical” search node
– Approximately : b* = N^(1/d)

271-Fall 2014
 The Effective Branching Factor

271-Fall 2014
271-Fall 2014
 1 4
A B C
2

S 2 5 G

5 3
2 4
D E F

A 10.4 B C
6.7 4.0

11.0 G
S

8.9 3.0
6.9
D E F
271-Fall 2014
 Example of Branch and Bound in action
S 1 5+8.9=13.9
2+10.4=12.4
A 2 D
3+6.7=9.7 8
7+4=11
B 3 D 4+8.9=12.9

8+6.9=14.9 5
C 4 E 9
E 6+6.9=12.9
10+8.9=18.9
12+3=15
F 6
D 11+6.7=17.7
10+3=13 F 10 B
L=15+0=15
G 7 A10.4 B C
6.7 4.0
L=13+0=13
A 1 B 4 C G 11 S 11.0 G
2
S 5 G
2271-Fall 2014 8.9 3.0
5 3 D E 6.9 F
D 2 E 4 F
 Example of A* Algorithm in Action
1
2 +10.4 = 12.4
S 5 + 8.9 = 13.9
2 D
3 + 6.7 = 9.7 A 5
B 3 D 4 + 8.9 = 12.9

7 + 4 = 11 4 8 + 6.9 = 14.9 6
C E 6 + 6.9 = 12.9
E
7
Dead End
B F 10 + 3.0 = 13
1 4 11 + 6.7 = 17.7
A B C 8
2 A10.4 B C
6.7 4.0 G
5 G 13 + 0 = 13
2
S S 11.0 G

5 3
2 4 8.9 3.0
D
271-Fall 2014 E F D E 6.9 F
 Pseudocode for Branch and Bound Search
(An informed depth-first search)
Initialize: Let Q = {S}, L=∞

While Q is not empty

pull Q1, the first element in Q
if f(Q1)>=L, skip it
if Q1 is a goal compute the cost of the solution and update
L <-- minimum (new cost, old cost)
else
child_nodes = expand(Q1),
<eliminate child_nodes which represent simple loops>,
For each child node n do:
evaluate f(n). If f(n) is greater than L discard n.
end-for
Put remaining child_nodes on top of queue in the order of their f.
end
Continue

271-Fall 2014
 Properties of Branch-and-Bound
• Not guaranteed to terminate unless
– has depth-bound
– admissible f and reasonable L
• Optimal:
– finds an optimal solution (f is admissible)
• Time complexity: exponential
• Space complexity: can be linear
• Advantage:
– anytime property
• Note : unlike A*, BnB may (will) expand nodes f>C*.
271-Fall 2014
 Iterative Deepening A* (IDA*)
(combining Branch-and-Bound and A*)
• Initialize: f <-- the evaluation function of the start node
• until goal node is found
– Loop:
• Do Branch-and-bound with upper-bound L equal to current evaluation function f.
• Increment evaluation function to next contour level
– end

• Properties:
– Guarantee to find an optimal solution
– time: exponential, like A*
– space: linear, like B&B.

– Problems: The number of iterations may be large.

271-Fall 2014
 Relationships among Search Algorithms

271-Fall 2014
 Effectiveness of heuristic search
• How quality of heuristic impact search?

• What is the time and space complexity?

• Is any algorithm better? Worse?

• Case study: the 8-puzzle

271-Fall 2014
 Admissible and Consistent Heuristics?
E.g., for the 8-puzzle:

• h1(n) = number of misplaced tiles

• h2(n) = total Manhattan distance
(i.e., no. of squares from desired location of each tile)
The true cost is 26.
Average cost for 8-puzzle is 22. Branching degree 3.

• h1(S) = ? 8
• h2(S) = ? 3+1+2+2+2+3+3+2 = 18

271-Fall 2014
 Effectiveness of A* Search Algorithm
Average number of nodes expanded

d IDS A*(h1) A*(h2)

2 10 6 6

4 112 13 12

8 6384 39 25

12 364404 227 73

14 3473941 539 113

20 ------------ 7276 676

24 ------------ 39135 1641

Average over 100 randomly generated 8-puzzle problems

h1 = number of tiles in the wrong position
271-Fall 2014 h2 = sum of Manhattan distances
 Dominance
• Definition: If h2(n) ≥ h1(n) for all n (both admissible) then h2
dominates h1

• Is h2 better for search?

• Typical search costs (average number of nodes expanded):

• d=12 IDS = 3,644,035 nodes

A*(h1) = 227 nodes
A*(h2) = 73 nodes
• d=24 IDS = out of memory
A*(h1) = 39,135 nodes
A*(h2) = 1,641 nodes

271-Fall 2014
 Heuristic’s Dominance and Pruning Power
• Definition:
– A heuristic function h2 (strictly) dominates h1 if both are
admissible and for every node n, h2(n) is (strictly) greater than
h1(n).
• Theorem (Hart, Nilsson and Raphale, 1968):
– An A* search with a dominating heuristic function h2 has the
property that any node it expands is also expanded by A*
with h1.
• Question: Does Manhattan distance dominate the
number of misplaced tiles?
• Extreme cases
– h=0
– h = h*
271-Fall 2014
 Inventing Heuristics automatically
• Examples of Heuristic Functions for A*
– The 8-puzzle problem
• The number of tiles in the wrong position
– is this admissible?
• Manhattan distance
– is this admissible?

– How can we invent admissible heuristics in general?

• look at “relaxed” problem where constraints are removed
– e.g.., we can move in straight lines between cities
– e.g.., we can move tiles independently of each other

271-Fall 2014
 Inventing Heuristics Automatically (cont.)
• How did we
– find h1 and h2 for the 8-puzzle?
– verify admissibility?
– prove that straight-line distance is admissible? MST admissible?
• Hypothetical answer:
– Heuristic are generated from relaxed problems
– Hypothesis: relaxed problems are easier to solve
• In relaxed models the search space has more operators or more
directed arcs
• Example: 8 puzzle:
– Rule : a tile can be moved from A to B, iff
• A and B are adjacent
• B is blank
– We can generate relaxed problems by removing one or more of the
conditions
• … A and B are adjacent & B is blank
• ... if B is blank

271-Fall 2014
 Relaxed Problems
• A problem with fewer restrictions on the actions is called a
relaxed problem

• The cost of an optimal solution to a relaxed problem is an

admissible heuristic for the original problem

• If the rules of the 8-puzzle are relaxed so that a tile can move
anywhere, then h1(n) (number of misplaced tiles) gives the
shortest solution

• If the rules are relaxed so that a tile can move to any h/v
adjacent square, then h2(n) (Manhatten distance) gives the
shortest solution

271-Fall 2014
 Generating heuristics (cont.)
• Example: TSP
• Find a tour. A tour is:
– 1. A graph with subset of edges
– 2. Connected
– 3. Total length of edges minimized
– 4. Each node has degree 2
• Eliminating 4 yields MST.

271-Fall 2014
271-Fall 2014
 Automating Heuristic generation
• Use STRIPs language representation:
• Operators:
– pre-conditions, add-list, delete list
• 8-puzzle example:
– on(x,y), clear(y) adj(y,z) ,tiles x1,…,x8
• States: conjunction of predicates:
– on(x1,c1),on(x2,c2)….on(x8,c8),clear(c9)
• move(x,c1,c2) (move tile x from location c1 to location c2)
– pre-cond: on(x1,c1), clear(c2), adj(c1,c2)
– add-list: on(x1,c2), clear(c1)
– delete-list: on(x1,c1), clear(c2)
• Relaxation:
– Remove from precondition: clear(c2), adj(c2,c3)  #misplaced tiles
– Remove clear(c2)  Manhattan distance
– Remove adj(c2,c3)  h3, a new procedure that transfers to the empty
location a tile appearing there in the goal
• The space of relaxations can be enriched by predicate refinements
– adj(y,z) = iff neigbour(y,z) and same-line(y,z)
271-Fall 2014
 Heuristic generation
• Theorem: Heuristics that are generated from relaxed models
are consistent.

• Proof: h is true shortest path in a relaxed model

– h(n) <=c’(n,n’)+h(n’) (c’ are shortest distances in relaxed
graph)
– c’(n,n’) <=c(n,n’)
–  h(n) <= c(n,n’)+h(n’)

271-Fall 2014
 Heuristic generation
• Total (time) complexity = heuristic computation + nodes
expanded
• More powerful heuristic – harder to compute, but more pruning
power (fewer nodes expanded)
• Problem:
– not every relaxed problem is easy
• How to recognize a relaxed easy problem
• A proposal: a problem is easy if it can be solved optimally
by a greedy algorithm
• Q: what if neither h1 nor h2 is clearly better? max(h1, h2)
• Often, a simpler problem which is more constrained is easier;
will provide a good upper-bound.
271-Fall 2014
 Improving Heuristics
• Reinforcement learning.
• Pattern Databases: you can solve optimally a
sub-problem

271-Fall 2014
 Pattern Databases
• For sliding tiles and Rubic’s cube

• For a subset of the tiles compute shortest path to the goal using
breadth-first search

• For 15 puzzles, if we have 7 fringe tiles and one blank, the number of
patterns to store are 16!/(16-8)! = 518,918,400.

• For each table entry we store the shortest number of moves to the
goal from the current location.

• Use different subsets of tiles and take the max heuristic during IDA*
search. The number of nodes to solve 15 puzzles was reduced by a
factor of 346 (Culberson and Schaeffer)

• How can this be generalized? (a possible project)

271-Fall 2014
 Beyond Classical Search
• AND/OR search spaces
– Decomposable independent problems
– Searching with non-deterministic actions (erratic vacuum)
– Using AND/OR search spaces; solution is a contingent plan
• Local search for optimization
– Greedy hill-climbing search, simulated annealing, local beam search,
genetic algorithms.
– Local search in continuous spaces
– SLS : "Like climbing Everest in thick fog with amnesia"
• Searching with partial observations
– Using belief states
• Online search agents and unknown environments
– Actions, costs, goal-tests are revealed in state only
– Exploration problems. Safely explorable
271-Fall 2014
 Problem-reduction representations
AND/OR search spaces
• Decomposable production systems (language parsing)
Initial database: (C,B,Z)
Rules: R1: C (D,L)
R2: C (B,M)
R3: B (M,M)
R4: Z  (B,B,M)
Find a path generating a string with M’s only.
• Graphical models
• The tower of Hanoi
To move n disks from peg 1 to peg 3 using peg 2
Move n-1 pegs to peg 2 via peg 3,
move the nth disk to peg 3,
move n-1 disks from peg 2 to peg 3 via peg 1.

271-Fall 2014
 AND/OR search spaces
non-deterministic actions : the erratic vacuum world

271-Fall 2014
 AND/OR Graphs
• Nodes represent subproblems

– AND links represent subproblem decompositions

– OR links represent alternative solutions
– Start node is initial problem
– Terminal nodes are solved subproblems

• Solution graph
– It is an AND/OR subgraph such that:
• It contains the start node
• All its terminal nodes (nodes with no successors) are solved primitive
problems
• If it contains an AND node A, it must contain the entire group of AND links
that leads to children of A.

271-Fall 2014
 Algorithms searching AND/OR graphs
• All algorithms generalize using hyper-arc successors rather than simple
arcs.

• AO*: is A* that searches AND/OR graphs for a solution subgraph.

• The cost of a solution graph is the sum cost of it arcs. It can be defined
recursively as: k(n,N) = c_n+k(n1,N)+…k(n_k,N)

• h*(n) is the cost of an optimal solution graph from n to a set of goal nodes

• h(n) is an admissible heuristic for h*(n)

• Monotonicity:
• h(n)<= c+h(n1)+…h(nk) where n1,…nk are successors of n

• AO* is guaranteed to find an optimal solution when it terminates if the

heuristic function is admissible

271-Fall 2014
 Local Search

271-Fall 2014
271-Fall 2014
 Summary
• In practice we often want the goal with the minimum cost path

• Exhaustive search is impractical except on small problems

• Heuristic estimates of the path cost from a node to the goal can
be efficient in reducing the search space.

• The A* algorithm combines all of these ideas with admissible

heuristics (which underestimate) , guaranteeing optimality.
• Properties of heuristics:
– admissibility, consistency, dominance, accuracy
• Reading
– R&N Chapters 3-4

271-Fall 2014