1 black box and generalized algorithms for planning in uncertain domains thesis proposal, dept. of...

1

Black Box and Generalized Algorithms for

Planning in Uncertain Domains

Thesis Proposal, Dept. of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

H. Brendan McMahan

2

Outline

The Problem and Approach Motivating Examples Goals and Techniques MDPs and Uncertainty

Example Algorithms Proposed Future Work

3

Mars Rover Mission Planning

Human control not realistic

Collect data while conserving power and bandwidth

First Experiments in the Robotic Investigation of Life in the Atacama Desert of Chile. D. Wettergreen, et al. 2005.

Recent Progress in Local and Global Traversability for Planetary Rovers. S. Singh, et al. 2000.

4

Autonomous Helicopter Control

6+ continuous state dimensions

Complex, non-linear dynamics

High failure cost

Inverted Autonomous Helicopter Flight via Reinforcement LearningA. Ng, et al.

Autonomous Helicopter Control using Reinforcement Learning Policy Search MethodsJ. Bagnell and J. Schneider

5

Online Shortest Path Problem

Getting from my (old) house to CMU each day:

6

Other Domains

7

Goal

Planning multiple decisions over time to achieve

goals or minimize cost

in Uncertain Domains NOT deterministic, fully observable,

perfectly modeled

8

The Black Box Approach

Fast ExistingAlgorithm

New Algorithm

HardPlanningProblem

EasierProblems

Solutions

Solution

9

The Generalization Approach

HardPlanningProblem

Solution

Generalization of ExistingAlgorithm

Fast ExistingAlgorithm

10

Two Examples

Black Box Approach

MDP Alg(e.g., value iteration)

Used as a Black BoxOracle Algorithms

(MDPs with unknown costs)

Generalize ToAlgorithms for

Stochastic Shortest Paths

Dijkstra’s Alg(Shortest Paths)

Generalization Approach

11

Benefits of using Black Boxes

Use fast/optimized/mature implementations

Pick implementation for specific domain

Will be able to use algorithms not even invented yet

Theoretical advantages

12

Benefits of Generalization

New intuitions Some performance guarantees for free

13

Markov Decision Processes

An MDP (S, A, P, c) … S is a finite set of states A is a finite set of actions dynamics P(y | x, a) costs c(x,a)

Goal:New idea!

No New Ideas

Hungry

A = {eat, wait, work}

0.1

0.8

0.1

0.01

0.99

1.0

1.0

$1.00 $1.00

$0.10

$4.75A Research MDP

14

Simple Example Domain

Robot path planning problem: Actions = {8 neighbors} Cost: Euclidean Distance Prob. p of random action

15

Types of Uncertainty

Outcome Uncertainty (MDPs) Partial Observability (POMDPs) Model Uncertainty (families of MDPs, RL)

Modeling Other Agents

(Agent Uncertainty?)

16

The Curse of Dimensionality

The size of |S| is exponential in the number of state variables:

<x,y, vx, vy, battery_power, door_open, another_door_open, goal_x, goal_y, bob_x, bob_y, …

>

17

Outline

The Problem and Approach Example Algorithms

MDPs with Unknown Costs Generalizing Dijkstra’s Algorithm

Proposed Future Work

18

Unknown Costs, Offline Version

A game with two players: The Planner chooses a policy for a

MDP with known dynamics

The Sentry chooses a cost function from a set K = {c1,…,ck} of possible cost functions.

19

Avoiding Detection by Sensors

The Planner (robot) picks policies (paths):

The Sentry picks cost functions (sensor placements):

20

Matrix Game Formulation

Matrix game M: Planner (rows) selects a policy Sentry (columns) selects a cost c M(, c) =

[total cost of under costs c]

Goal: Find a minimax solution to M

An optimal mixed strategy for the planner is a distribution over deterministic polices

(paths).

21

Interpretations

Model Uncertainty:

→ unknown cost function Partial Observability:

→ fixed, unobservable cost function Agent Uncertainty:

→ an adversary picks the cost function

22

How to Solve It

Problem: Matrix M is exponentially big Solution: Can be represented compactly as a

Linear Program (LP)

Problem: LP still takes much too long to solve Solution: The Single Oracle Algorithm, taking

advantage of fast black box MDP algorithms

23

Single Oracle Algorithm

F is a small set of policies M’ is the matrix game

where the Planner must play from F.

We can solve M’ efficiently, it is only |F| x |K| in size!

|F| = 2

24


If only … we knew it was sufficient for

the Planner to randomize among a small set of strategies

and we could find that set of strategies.

25


1. Use an MDP algorithm to find an optimal policy against the fixed cost function c.

2. Add to F

3. Solve M’ and let c be the expected cost function under the Sentry’s optimal mixed strategy.

26

Example Run: Initialization

Fix policy (blue path)

Solve M’ to find red sensor field (cost vector), fix this as c

27

Iteration 1: Best Response

Solve for the best response policy (new blue line)

Add to F

Red: Fixed cost vector (expected field of view)Blue: Shortest path given costs

28

Iteration 1: Solve the Game

Solve M’

Minimax Equilibrium:Red: Mixture of CostsBlue: Mixture of Paths from F

29



Add to F


30

Iteration 2: Solve the Game

Solve M’

Minimax Equilibrium:Red: Mixture of CostsBlue: Mixture of Paths from F

31

Iteration 6: ConvergenceSolution to M’ Best Response

32

Unknown Costs, Online Version

Go from my house to CMU each day Model as a graph

33

A Shortest Path Problem?

If we knew all the edge costs, it would be easy! But, traffic, downed trees → uncertainty

34

Limited Observations

Each day, observe the total length of the path we actually took to get to CMU

BGA Algorithm:

Keep estimates of edge lengths

• Most days, follow FPL1 algorithm: pick shortest path with respect to estimated lengths plus a little noise.

• Occasionally, play a “random” path in order to make sure we have good estimates of the edge lengths.

1 [Kalai and Vempala, 2003]

35

Dijkstra's Algorithm

G

x1

x2

x3

x4

v'= 0

v'=∞

v'=∞

v'= ∞

v'=∞

v'=3

v'=2v'=1

v'=5

v'=6v'=7

v'=2

Keeps states on a priority queue

Pops states in order of increasing distance, updates predecessors

Prioritized Sweeping1,2 has a similar structure, but doesn’t reduce to Dijkstra’s algorithm

1 [A. Moore, C. Atkeson 1993] 2 [D. Andre, et al. 1998]

36

Prioritized Sweeping

When we pop a state x, backup x, update priorities of predecessors w

y1

y2

y3

w1

w2

x1

Values of red states updated

based on value of purple states.

37

Improved Prioritized Sweeping

When we pop a state x, its value has already been updated

Update values and priorities of predecessors w

y1

y2

y3

w1

w2

x1

Values of red states updated

based on value of purple states.

38

Priority Function Intuitions

Update the state: with lowest value (closest to goal) whose value is most accurately known

For Dijkstra’s algorithm, the updated (popped) state’s optimal value is known

This is the state whose value will change the least in the future.

whose value has changed the most since it was last updated.

39

ComparisonIPS, deterministic domain: PS, same problem:

Dark red indicates recently popped from queue, lighter means less recently.

40

Outline

The Problem and Approach Example Algorithms Proposed Future Work

Bounded RTDP and extensions Large action spaces Details of proposed contributions

41

Bounded RTDP

RTDP: Fixed start state means many

states are irrelevant Sample, backup along start → goal trajectories

BRTDP adds: performance guarantees, much

faster convergence(often better than HDP, LRTDP,and LAO*)

42

Dijkstra and BRTDP

Dijkstra-style scheduling of backups for BRTDP

Sample multiple trajectories

Use priority queue to schedule backups of states on all trajectories

43

Dijkstra, BRTDP, and POMDPs

HSVI1 is like BRTDP, but for POMDPs

The same trick should apply

But more benefit, because backups are more expensive

Piecewise linear belief-space value function

x1 x2

1 [T. Smith and R. Simmons. 2004 ]

44

Large Action Spaces

(Prioritized) Policy Iteration already has an advantage

Better tradeoff between policy evaluation, policy improvement?

Structured sets of actions? Application of

Experts/Bandits algorithms?

45

Details: Proposed Contributions

Discussion of algorithms already developed: Oracle Algorithms, BGA, IPS, BRTDP, and several others.

At least two significant new algorithmic contributions: BRTDP + Dijkstra algorithm, extension to POMDPs Improved version of PPI to handle large action spaces Something else: generalizations of conjugate-gradient linear

solvers to MDPs, extensions of the technique for finding upper bounds introduced in the BRTDP paper, algorithms for efficiently

solving restricted classes of POMDPs...

46

Details: Proposed Contributions

At least one significant new theoretical contribution: Approximation algorithm for Canadian Traveler’s

Problem or Stochastic TSP Results connecting online algorithms / MDP

techniques to stochastic optimization New contributions on bandit-style online algorithms,

perhaps applications to MDPs

47

SummaryMotivating Problems

Black Boxes: MDPs with unknown Costs

Generalization:

Reducing to Dijkstra

Future Work:BRTDP + Dijkstra,Large action spaces

48

Questions?

49

Relationships of Algorithms Discussed

50



Add to F


51

Representations, Algorithms

Simulation dynamics model

Factored Representation (DBNs, etc)

STRIPS-style languages

Policy Search, …

Generalizations of Value Iteration, …

1 black box and generalized algorithms for planning in uncertain domains thesis proposal, dept. of...

Documents