Dr. Manuel Heusner

Greedy best-first search (GBFS) is a sibling of A* in the family of best-first state-space search algorithms. While A* is guaranteed to find optimal solutions of search problems, GBFS does not provide any guarantees but typically finds satisficing solutions more quickly than A*. A classical result of optimal best-first search shows that A* with admissible and consistent heuristic expands every state whose f-value is below the optimal solution cost and no state whose f-value is above the optimal solution cost. Theoretical results of this kind are useful for the analysis of heuristics in different search domains and for the improvement of algorithms. For satisficing algorithms a similarly clear understanding is currently lacking. We examine the search behavior of GBFS in order to make progress towards such an understanding.

We introduce the concept of high-water mark benches, which separate the search space into areas that are searched by GBFS in sequence. High-water mark benches allow us to exactly determine the set of states that GBFS expands under at least one tie-breaking strategy. We show that benches contain craters. Once GBFS enters a crater, it has to expand every state in the crater before being able to escape.

Benches and craters allow us to characterize the best-case and worst-case behavior of GBFS in given search instances. We show that computing the best-case or worst-case behavior of GBFS is NP-complete in general but can be computed in polynomial time for undirected state spaces.

We present algorithms for extracting the set of states that GBFS potentially expands and for computing the best-case and worst-case behavior. We use the algorithms to analyze GBFS on benchmark tasks from planning competitions under a state-of-the-art heuristic. Experimental results reveal interesting characteristics of the heuristic on the given tasks and demonstrate the importance of tie-breaking in GBFS.

We study the impact of tie-breaking on the behavior of greedy best-first search with a fixed state space and fixed heuristic. We prove that it is NP-complete to determine the number of states that need to be expanded by greedy best-first search in the best case or in the worst case. However, the best- and worst-case behavior can be computed in polynomial time for undirected state spaces. We perform computational experiments on benchmark tasks from the International Planning Competitions that compare the best and worst cases of greedy best-first search to FIFO, LIFO and random tie-breaking. The experiments demonstrate the importance of tie-breaking in greedy best-first search.

A classical result in optimal search shows that A* with an admissible and consistent heuristic expands every state whose f-value is below the optimal solution cost and no state whose f-value is above the optimal solution cost. For satisficing search algorithms, a similarly clear understanding is currently lacking. We examine the search behavior of greedy best-first search (GBFS) in order to make progress towards such an understanding.

A classical result in optimal search shows that A* with an admissible and consistent heuristic expands every state whose f-value is below the optimal solution cost and no state whose f-value is above the optimal solution cost. For satisficing search algorithms, a similarly clear understanding is currently lacking. We examine the search behaviour of greedy best-first search (GBFS) in order to make progress towards such an understanding. We introduce the concept of high-water mark benches, which separate the search space into areas that are searched by a GBFS algorithm in sequence. High-water mark benches allow us to exactly determine the set of states that are not expanded under any GBFS tie-breaking strategy. For the remaining states, we show that some are expanded by all GBFS searches, while others are expanded only if certain conditions are met.

A general and important problem of search-based planning techniques is the state explosion problem, which is usually tackled with approaches to reduce the branching factor of the planning task. Such approaches often implicitly exploit the observation that the number of available operators is higher than the number of operators that are actually needed to find a plan. In this paper, we propose a simple, but general under-approximation refinement framework for satisficing planning that explicitly exploits this observation. Our approach iteratively searches for plans with operator subsets, which are refined if necessary by adding operators that appear to be needed. Our evaluation shows that even a straight-forward instantiation of this framework yields a competitive planner that often finds plans with small operator sets.