DOCSLIB.ORG

Monte-Carlo Tree Search As Regularized Policy Optimization

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Monte-Carlo Tree Search As Regularized Policy Optimization Monte-Carlo tree search as regularized policy optimization Jean-Bastien Grill * 1 Florent Altche´ * 1 Yunhao Tang * 1 2 Thomas Hubert 3 Michal Valko 1 Ioannis Antonoglou 3 Remi´ Munos 1 Abstract AlphaZero employs an alternative handcrafted heuristic to achieve super-human performance on board games (Silver The combination of Monte-Carlo tree search et al., 2016). Recent MCTS-based MuZero (Schrittwieser (MCTS) with deep reinforcement learning has et al., 2019) has also led to state-of-the-art results in the led to significant advances in artificial intelli- Atari benchmarks (Bellemare et al., 2013). gence. However, AlphaZero, the current state- of-the-art MCTS algorithm, still relies on hand- Our main contribution is connecting MCTS algorithms, crafted heuristics that are only partially under- in particular the highly-successful AlphaZero, with MPO, stood. In this paper, we show that AlphaZero’s a state-of-the-art model-free policy-optimization algo- search heuristics, along with other common ones rithm (Abdolmaleki et al., 2018). Specifically, we show that such as UCT, are an approximation to the solu- the empirical visit distribution of actions in AlphaZero’s tion of a specific regularized policy optimization search procedure approximates the solution of a regularized problem. With this insight, we propose a variant policy-optimization objective. With this insight, our second of AlphaZero which uses the exact solution to contribution a modified version of AlphaZero that comes this policy optimization problem, and show exper- significant performance gains over the original algorithm, imentally that it reliably outperforms the original especially in cases where AlphaZero has been observed to algorithm in multiple domains. fail, e.g., when per-search simulation budgets are low (Ham- rick et al., 2020). In Section2, we briefly present MCTS with a focus on Al- 1. Introduction phaZero and provide a short summary of the model-free Policy gradient is at the core of many state-of-the-art deep policy-optimization. In Section3, we show that AlphaZero reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms. Among many suc- (and many other MCTS algorithms) computes approximate cessive improvements to the original algorithm (Sutton et al., solutions to a family of regularized policy optimization 2000), regularized policy optimization encompasses a large problems. With this insight, Section4 introduces a modified family of such techniques. Among them trust region policy version of AlphaZero which leverages the benefits of the optimization is a prominent example (Schulman et al., 2015; policy optimization formalism to improve upon the origi- 2017; Abdolmaleki et al., 2018; Song et al., 2019). These al- nal algorithm. Finally, Section5 shows that this modified gorithmic enhancements have led to significant performance algorithm outperforms AlphaZero on Atari games and con- gains in various benchmark domains (Song et al., 2019). tinuous control tasks. As another successful RL framework, the AlphaZero family of algorithms (Silver et al., 2016; 2017b;a; Schrittwieser 2. Background et al., 2019) have obtained groundbreaking results on chal- Consider a standard RL setting tied to a Markov decision lenging domains by combining classical deep learning (He process (MDP) with state space X and action space A. At a et al., 2016) and RL (Williams, 1992) techniques with discrete round t ≥ 0, the agent in state xt 2 X takes action Monte-Carlo tree search (Kocsis and Szepesvari´ , 2006). at 2 A given a policy at ∼ π(·|st), receives reward rt, To search efficiently, the MCTS action selection criteria and transitions to a next state xt+1 ∼ p(·|xt; at). The RL takes inspiration from bandits (Auer, 2002). Interestingly, problem consists in finding a policy which maximizes the P t *Equal contribution 1DeepMind, Paris, FR 2Columbia Univer- discounted cumulative return Eπ[ t≥0 γ rt] for a discount sity, New York, USA 3DeepMind, London, UK. Correspondence factor γ 2 (0; 1). To scale the method to large environments, to: Jean-Bastien Grill <[email protected]>. we assume that the policy πθ(ajx) is parameterized by a neural network θ. Proceedings of the 37 th International Conference on Machine Learning, Vienna, Austria, PMLR 119, 2020. Copyright 2020 by the author(s). MCTS as regularized policy optimization 2.1. AlphaZero updates the current policy πθ by solving a local maximiza- tion problem of the form We focus on the AlphaZero family, comprised of Al- T phaGo (Silver et al., 2016), AlphaGo Zero (Silver π 0 arg max Q y − R(y; π ); θ , πθ θ (2) et al., 2017b), AlphaZero (Silver et al., 2017a), and y2S MuZero (Schrittwieser et al., 2019), which are among the where Qπθ is an estimate of the Q-function, S is the jAj- most successful algorithms in combining model-free and 2 dimensional simplex and R : S ! R a convex regulariza- model-based RL. Although they make different assump- tion term (Neu et al., 2017; Grill et al., 2019; Geist et al., tions, all of these methods share the same underlying search 2019). Intuitively, Eq.2 updates πθ to maximize the value algorithm, which we refer to as AlphaZero for simplicity. QT y πθ while constraining the update with a regularization From a state x, AlphaZero uses MCTS (Browne et al., 2012) term R(y; πθ). to compute an improved policy π^(·|x) at the root of the Without regularizations, i.e., R = 0, Eq.2 reduces to policy search tree from the prior distribution predicted by a policy iteration (Sutton and Barto, 1998). When π is updated 1 θ network πθ(·|x) ; see Eq.3 for the definition. This im- using a single gradient ascent step towards the solution proved policy is then distilled back into πθ by updating θ of Eq.2, instead of using the solution directly, the above as θ θ − ηrθEx[D(^π(·|x); πθ(·|x))] for a certain di- formulation reduces to (regularized) policy gradient (Sutton vergence D. In turn, the distilled parameterized policy πθ et al., 2000; Levine, 2018). informs the next local search by predicting priors, further improving the local policy over successive iterations. There- Interestingly, the regularization term has been found to sta- fore, such an algorithmic procedure is a special case of bilize, and possibly to speed up the convergence of πθ. generalized policy improvement (Sutton and Barto, 1998). For instance, trust region policy search algorithms (TRPO, Schulman et al., 2015; MPO Abdolmaleki et al., 2018; V- One of the main differences between AlphaZero and previ- MPO, Song et al., 2019), set R to be the KL-divergence ous MCTS algorithms such as UCT (Kocsis and Szepesvari´ , between consecutive policies KL[y; πθ]; maximum entropy 2006) is the introduction of a learned prior πθ and value RL (Ziebart, 2010; Fox et al., 2015; O’Donoghue et al., function vθ. Additionally, AlphaZero’s search procedure 2016; Haarnoja et al., 2017) sets R to be the negative en- applies the following action selection heuristic, tropy of y to avoid collapsing to a deterministic policy. " pP # b n(x; b) arg max Q(x; a) + c · πθ(ajx) · , (1) 3. MCTS as regularized policy optimization a 1 + n(x; a) In Section2, we presented AlphaZero that relies on model- where c is a numerical constant,2 n(x; a) is the number of based planning. We also presented policy optimization, a times that action a has been selected from state x during framework that has achieved good performance in model- search, and Q(x; a) is an estimate of the Q-function for free RL. In this section, we establish our main claim state-action pair (x; a) computed from search statistics and namely that AlphaZero’s action selection criteria can be interpreted as approximating the solution to a regularized using vθ for bootstrapping. policy-optimization objective. Intuitively, this selection criteria balances exploration and exploitation, by selecting the most promising actions (high 3.1. Notation Q-value Q(x; a) and prior policy πθ(ajx)) or actions that have rarely been explored (small visit count n(x; a)). We First, let us define the empirical visit distribution π^ as denote by Nsim the simulation budget, i.e., the search is 1 + n(x; a) run with N simulations. A more detailed presentation of π^(ajx) · (3) sim , jAj + P n(x; b) AlphaZero is in AppendixA; for a full description of the b algorithm, refer to Silver et al.(2017a). Note that in Eq.3, we consider an extra visit per action compared to the acting policy and distillation target in the 2.2. Policy optimization original definition (Silver et al., 2016). This extra visit is introduced for convenience in the upcoming analysis (to Policy optimization aims at finding a globally optimal pol- avoid divisions by zero) and does not change the generality π icy θ, generally using iterative updates. Each iteration of our results. 1 We note here that terminologies such as prior follow Silver We also define the multiplier λ as et al.(2017a) and do not relate to concepts in Bayesian statistics. N 2 Schrittwieser et al.(2019) uses a c that has a slow-varying pP n P b b , dependency on b n(x; b), which we omit here for simplicity, as λN (x) , c · P (4) it was the case of Silver et al.(2017a). jAj + b nb MCTS as regularized policy optimization where the shorthand notation na is used for n(x; a), and Remark The factor λN isp a decreasing function of N. P ~ N(x) , b nb denotes the number of visits to x during Asymptotically, λN = O(1= N). Therefore, the influence search. With this notation, the action selection formula of of the regularization term decreases as the number of simu- Eq.1 can be written as selecting the action a? such that lation increases, which makes π¯ rely increasingly more on search Q-values q and less on the policy prior πθ.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Monte-Carlo Tree Search Solver
    Monte-Carlo Tree Search Solver Mark H.M. Winands1, Yngvi BjÄornsson2, and Jahn-Takeshi Saito1 1 Games and AI Group, MICC, Universiteit Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands fm.winands,[email protected] 2 School of Computer Science, Reykjav¶³kUniversity, Reykjav¶³k,Iceland [email protected] Abstract. Recently, Monte-Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) has advanced the ¯eld of computer Go substantially. In this article we investigate the application of MCTS for the game Lines of Action (LOA). A new MCTS variant, called MCTS-Solver, has been designed to play narrow tacti- cal lines better in sudden-death games such as LOA. The variant di®ers from the traditional MCTS in respect to backpropagation and selection strategy. It is able to prove the game-theoretical value of a position given su±cient time. Experiments show that a Monte-Carlo LOA program us- ing MCTS-Solver defeats a program using MCTS by a winning score of 65%. Moreover, MCTS-Solver performs much better than a program using MCTS against several di®erent versions of the world-class ®¯ pro- gram MIA. Thus, MCTS-Solver constitutes genuine progress in using simulation-based search approaches in sudden-death games, signi¯cantly improving upon MCTS-based programs. 1 Introduction For decades ®¯ search has been the standard approach used by programs for playing two-person zero-sum games such as chess and checkers (and many oth- ers). Over the years many search enhancements have been proposed for this framework. However, in some games where it is di±cult to construct an accurate positional evaluation function (e.g., Go) the ®¯ approach was hardly success- ful.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Model-Based Reinforcement Learning with Internal State Representations Through Self-Supervision
    1 Improving Model-Based Reinforcement Learning with Internal State Representations through Self-Supervision Julien Scholz, Cornelius Weber, Muhammad Burhan Hafez and Stefan Wermter Knowledge Technology, Department of Informatics, University of Hamburg, Germany [email protected], fweber, hafez, [email protected] Abstract—Using a model of the environment, reinforcement the design decisions made for MuZero, namely, how uncon- learning agents can plan their future moves and achieve super- strained its learning process is. After explaining all necessary human performance in board games like Chess, Shogi, and Go, fundamentals, we propose two individual augmentations to while remaining relatively sample-efficient. As demonstrated by the MuZero Algorithm, the environment model can even be the algorithm that work fully unsupervised in an attempt to learned dynamically, generalizing the agent to many more tasks improve its performance and make it more reliable. After- while at the same time achieving state-of-the-art performance. ward, we evaluate our proposals by benchmarking the regular Notably, MuZero uses internal state representations derived from MuZero algorithm against the newly augmented creation. real environment states for its predictions. In this paper, we bind the model’s predicted internal state representation to the environ- II. BACKGROUND ment state via two additional terms: a reconstruction model loss and a simpler consistency loss, both of which work independently A. MuZero Algorithm and unsupervised, acting as constraints to stabilize the learning process. Our experiments show that this new integration of The MuZero algorithm [1] is a model-based reinforcement reconstruction model loss and simpler consistency loss provide a learning algorithm that builds upon the success of its prede- significant performance increase in OpenAI Gym environments.
    [Show full text]
  • Αβ-Based Play-Outs in Monte-Carlo Tree Search
    αβ-based Play-outs in Monte-Carlo Tree Search Mark H.M. Winands Yngvi Bjornsson¨ Abstract— Monte-Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) is a recent [9]. In the context of game playing, Monte-Carlo simulations paradigm for game-tree search, which gradually builds a game- were first used as a mechanism for dynamically evaluating tree in a best-first fashion based on the results of randomized the merits of leaf nodes of a traditional αβ-based search [10], simulation play-outs. The performance of such an approach is highly dependent on both the total number of simulation play- [11], [12], but under the new paradigm MCTS has evolved outs and their quality. The two metrics are, however, typically into a full-fledged best-first search procedure that replaces inversely correlated — improving the quality of the play- traditional αβ-based search altogether. MCTS has in the past outs generally involves adding knowledge that requires extra couple of years substantially advanced the state-of-the-art computation, thus allowing fewer play-outs to be performed in several game domains where αβ-based search has had per time unit. The general practice in MCTS seems to be more towards using relatively knowledge-light play-out strategies for difficulties, in particular computer Go, but other domains the benefit of getting additional simulations done. include General Game Playing [13], Amazons [14] and Hex In this paper we show, for the game Lines of Action (LOA), [15]. that this is not necessarily the best strategy. The newest version The right tradeoff between search and knowledge equally of our simulation-based LOA program, MC-LOAαβ , uses a applies to MCTS.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey on Reinforcement Learning for Language Processing
    Survey on reinforcement learning for language processing V´ıctorUc-Cetina1, Nicol´asNavarro-Guerrero2, Anabel Martin-Gonzalez1, Cornelius Weber3, Stefan Wermter3 1 Universidad Aut´onomade Yucat´an- fuccetina, [email protected] 2 Aarhus University - [email protected] 3 Universit¨atHamburg - fweber, [email protected] February 2021 Abstract In recent years some researchers have explored the use of reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms as key components in the solution of various natural language process- ing tasks. For instance, some of these algorithms leveraging deep neural learning have found their way into conversational systems. This paper reviews the state of the art of RL methods for their possible use for different problems of natural language processing, focusing primarily on conversational systems, mainly due to their growing relevance. We provide detailed descriptions of the problems as well as discussions of why RL is well-suited to solve them. Also, we analyze the advantages and limitations of these methods. Finally, we elaborate on promising research directions in natural language processing that might benefit from reinforcement learning. Keywords| reinforcement learning, natural language processing, conversational systems, pars- ing, translation, text generation 1 Introduction Machine learning algorithms have been very successful to solve problems in the natural language pro- arXiv:2104.05565v1 [cs.CL] 12 Apr 2021 cessing (NLP) domain for many years, especially supervised and unsupervised methods. However, this is not the case with reinforcement learning (RL), which is somewhat surprising since in other domains, reinforcement learning methods have experienced an increased level of success with some impressive results, for instance in board games such as AlphaGo Zero [106].
    [Show full text]
  • Smartk: Efficient, Scalable and Winning Parallel MCTS
    SmartK: Efficient, Scalable and Winning Parallel MCTS Michael S. Davinroy, Shawn Pan, Bryce Wiedenbeck, and Tia Newhall Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA 19081 ACM Reference Format: processes. Each process constructs a distinct search tree in Michael S. Davinroy, Shawn Pan, Bryce Wiedenbeck, and Tia parallel, communicating only its best solutions at the end of Newhall. 2019. SmartK: Efficient, Scalable and Winning Parallel a number of rollouts to pick a next action. This approach has MCTS. In SC ’19, November 17–22, 2019, Denver, CO. ACM, low communication overhead, but significant duplication of New York, NY, USA, 3 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/nnnnnnn.nnnnnnneffort across processes. 1 INTRODUCTION Like root parallelization, our SmartK algorithm achieves low communication overhead by assigning independent MCTS Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) is a popular algorithm tasks to processes. However, SmartK dramatically reduces for game playing that has also been applied to problems as search duplication by starting the parallel searches from many diverse as auction bidding [5], program analysis [9], neural different nodes of the search tree. Its key idea is it uses nodes’ network architecture search [16], and radiation therapy de- weights in the selection phase to determine the number of sign [6]. All of these domains exhibit combinatorial search processes (the amount of computation) to allocate to ex- spaces where even moderate-sized problems can easily ex- ploring a node, directing more computational effort to more haust computational resources, motivating the need for par- promising searches. allel approaches. SmartK is our novel parallel MCTS algo- Our experiments with an MPI implementation of SmartK rithm that achieves high performance on large clusters, by for playing Hex show that SmartK has a better win rate and adaptively partitioning the search space to efficiently utilize scales better than other parallelization approaches.
    [Show full text]
  • Monte-Carlo Tree Search
    Monte-Carlo Tree Search PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Maastricht, op gezag van de Rector Magnificus, Prof. mr. G.P.M.F. Mols, volgens het besluit van het College van Decanen, in het openbaar te verdedigen op donderdag 30 september 2010 om 14:00 uur door Guillaume Maurice Jean-Bernard Chaslot Promotor: Prof. dr. G. Weiss Copromotor: Dr. M.H.M. Winands Dr. B. Bouzy (Universit´e Paris Descartes) Dr. ir. J.W.H.M. Uiterwijk Leden van de beoordelingscommissie: Prof. dr. ir. R.L.M. Peeters (voorzitter) Prof. dr. M. Muller¨ (University of Alberta) Prof. dr. H.J.M. Peters Prof. dr. ir. J.A. La Poutr´e (Universiteit Utrecht) Prof. dr. ir. J.C. Scholtes The research has been funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), in the framework of the project Go for Go, grant number 612.066.409. Dissertation Series No. 2010-41 The research reported in this thesis has been carried out under the auspices of SIKS, the Dutch Research School for Information and Knowledge Systems. ISBN 978-90-8559-099-6 Printed by Optima Grafische Communicatie, Rotterdam. Cover design and layout finalization by Steven de Jong, Maastricht. c 2010 G.M.J-B. Chaslot. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronically, mechanically, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the author. Preface When I learnt the game of Go, I was intrigued by the contrast between the simplicity of its rules and the difficulty to build a strong Go program.
    [Show full text]
  • CS234 Notes - Lecture 14 Model Based RL, Monte-Carlo Tree Search
    CS234 Notes - Lecture 14 Model Based RL, Monte-Carlo Tree Search Anchit Gupta, Emma Brunskill June 14, 2018 1 Introduction In this lecture we will learn about model based RL and simulation based tree search methods. So far we have seen methods which attempt to learn either a value function or a policy from experience. In contrast model based approaches first learn a model of the world from experience and then use this for planning and acting. Model-based approaches have been shown to have better sample efficiency and faster convergence in certain settings. We will also have a look at MCTS and its variants which can be used for planning given a model. MCTS was one of the main ideas behind the success of AlphaGo. Figure 1: Relationships among learning, planning, and acting 2 Model Learning By model we mean a representation of an MDP < S; A; R; T; γ> parametrized by η. In the model learning regime we assume that the state and action space S; A are known and typically we also assume conditional independence between state transitions and rewards i.e P [st+1; rt+1jst; at] = P [st+1jst; at]P [rt+1jst; at] Hence learning a model consists of two main parts the reward function R(:js; a) and the transition distribution P (:js; a). k k k k K Given a set of real trajectories fSt ;At Rt ; :::; ST gk=1 model learning can be posed as a supervised learning problem. Learning the reward function R(s; a) is a regression problem whereas learning the transition function P (s0js; a) is a density estimation problem.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Monte Carlo Tree Search
    Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-17) An Analysis of Monte Carlo Tree Search Steven James,∗ George Konidaris,† Benjamin Rosman∗‡ ∗University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa †Brown University, Providence RI 02912, USA ‡Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Pretoria, South Africa [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract UCT calls for rollouts to be performed by randomly se- lecting actions until a terminal state is reached. The outcome Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) is a family of directed of the simulation is then propagated to the root of the tree. search algorithms that has gained widespread attention in re- cent years. Despite the vast amount of research into MCTS, Averaging these results over many iterations performs re- the effect of modifications on the algorithm, as well as the markably well, despite the fact that actions during the sim- manner in which it performs in various domains, is still not ulation are executed completely at random. As the outcome yet fully known. In particular, the effect of using knowledge- of the simulations directly affects the entire algorithm, one heavy rollouts in MCTS still remains poorly understood, with might expect that the manner in which they are performed surprising results demonstrating that better-informed rollouts has a major effect on the overall strength of the algorithm. often result in worse-performing agents. We present exper- A natural assumption to make is that completely random imental evidence suggesting that, under certain smoothness simulations are not ideal, since they do not map to realistic conditions, uniformly random simulation policies preserve actions.
    [Show full text]
  • CS 188: Artificial Intelligence Game Playing State-Of-The-Art
    CS 188: Artificial Intelligence Game Playing State-of-the-Art § Checkers: 1950: First computer player. 1994: First Adversarial Search computer champion: Chinook ended 40-year-reign of human champion Marion Tinsley using complete 8-piece endgame. 2007: Checkers solved! § Chess: 1997: Deep Blue defeats human champion Gary Kasparov in a six-game match. Deep Blue examined 200M positions per second, used very sophisticated evaluation and undisclosed methods for extending some lines of search up to 40 ply. Current programs are even better, if less historic. § Go: Human champions are now starting to be challenged by machines. In go, b > 300! Classic programs use pattern knowledge bases, but big recent advances use Monte Carlo (randomized) expansion methods. Instructors: Pieter Abbeel & Dan Klein University of California, Berkeley [These slides were created by Dan Klein and Pieter Abbeel for CS188 Intro to AI at UC Berkeley (ai.berkeley.edu).] Game Playing State-of-the-Art Behavior from Computation § Checkers: 1950: First computer player. 1994: First computer champion: Chinook ended 40-year-reign of human champion Marion Tinsley using complete 8-piece endgame. 2007: Checkers solved! § Chess: 1997: Deep Blue defeats human champion Gary Kasparov in a six-game match. Deep Blue examined 200M positions per second, used very sophisticated evaluation and undisclosed methods for extending some lines of search up to 40 ply. Current programs are even better, if less historic. § Go: 2016: Alpha GO defeats human champion. Uses Monte Carlo Tree Search, learned
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning: a Review of Challenges and Applications
    applied sciences Review Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning: A Review of Challenges and Applications Lorenzo Canese †, Gian Carlo Cardarilli, Luca Di Nunzio †, Rocco Fazzolari † , Daniele Giardino †, Marco Re † and Sergio Spanò *,† Department of Electronic Engineering, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Via del Politecnico 1, 00133 Rome, Italy; [email protected] (L.C.); [email protected] (G.C.C.); [email protected] (L.D.N.); [email protected] (R.F.); [email protected] (D.G.); [email protected] (M.R.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-06-7259-7273 † These authors contributed equally to this work. Abstract: In this review, we present an analysis of the most used multi-agent reinforcement learn- ing algorithms. Starting with the single-agent reinforcement learning algorithms, we focus on the most critical issues that must be taken into account in their extension to multi-agent scenarios. The analyzed algorithms were grouped according to their features. We present a detailed taxonomy of the main multi-agent approaches proposed in the literature, focusing on their related mathematical models. For each algorithm, we describe the possible application fields, while pointing out its pros and cons. The described multi-agent algorithms are compared in terms of the most important char- acteristics for multi-agent reinforcement learning applications—namely, nonstationarity, scalability, and observability. We also describe the most common benchmark environments used to evaluate the Citation: Canese, L.; Cardarilli, G.C.; performances of the considered methods. Di Nunzio, L.; Fazzolari, R.; Giardino, D.; Re, M.; Spanò, S. Multi-Agent Keywords: machine learning; reinforcement learning; multi-agent; swarm Reinforcement Learning: A Review of Challenges and Applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Combining Off and On-Policy Training in Model-Based Reinforcement Learning
    Combining Off and On-Policy Training in Model-Based Reinforcement Learning Alexandre Borges Arlindo L. Oliveira INESC-ID / Instituto Superior Técnico INESC-ID / Instituto Superior Técnico University of Lisbon University of Lisbon Lisbon, Portugal Lisbon, Portugal ABSTRACT factor and game length. AlphaGo [1] was the first computer pro- The combination of deep learning and Monte Carlo Tree Search gram to beat a professional human player in the game of Go by (MCTS) has shown to be effective in various domains, such as combining deep neural networks with tree search. In the first train- board and video games. AlphaGo [1] represented a significant step ing phase, the system learned from expert games, but a second forward in our ability to learn complex board games, and it was training phase enabled the system to improve its performance by rapidly followed by significant advances, such as AlphaGo Zero self-play using reinforcement learning. AlphaGoZero [2] learned [2] and AlphaZero [3]. Recently, MuZero [4] demonstrated that only through self-play and was able to beat AlphaGo soundly. Alp- it is possible to master both Atari games and board games by di- haZero [3] improved on AlphaGoZero by generalizing the model rectly learning a model of the environment, which is then used to any board game. However, these methods were designed only with Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) [5] to decide what move for board games, specifically for two-player zero-sum games. to play in each position. During tree search, the algorithm simu- Recently, MuZero [4] improved on AlphaZero by generalizing lates games by exploring several possible moves and then picks the it even more, so that it can learn to play singe-agent games while, action that corresponds to the most promising trajectory.
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Monte Carlo Tree Search Methods
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND AI IN GAMES, VOL. 4, NO. 1, MARCH 2012 1 A Survey of Monte Carlo Tree Search Methods Cameron Browne, Member, IEEE, Edward Powley, Member, IEEE, Daniel Whitehouse, Member, IEEE, Simon Lucas, Senior Member, IEEE, Peter I. Cowling, Member, IEEE, Philipp Rohlfshagen, Stephen Tavener, Diego Perez, Spyridon Samothrakis and Simon Colton Abstract—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 summarise the results from the key game and non-game domains to which MCTS methods have been applied. A number of open research questions indicate that the field is ripe for future work. Index Terms—Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS), Upper Confidence Bounds (UCB), Upper Confidence Bounds for Trees (UCT), Bandit-based methods, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Game search, Computer Go. F 1 INTRODUCTION ONTE Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) is a method for M finding optimal decisions in a given domain by taking random samples in the decision space and build- ing a search tree according to the results. It has already had a profound impact on Artificial Intelligence (AI) approaches for domains that can be represented as trees of sequential decisions, particularly games and planning problems.
    [Show full text]