Description of research interests and current work related to automating software design

Enclosed is a list of selected and recent publications. Most of these publications concern applied research in the areas of software engineering and human-computer interaction. It is felt that domain-specific knowledge plays a major role in software development. Additionally, it is believed that improvements in the general software development process (e.g., object-oriented approaches) will have to be combined with the use of large domain-specific knowledge bases

GAMES: A new Scenario for Software and Knowledge Reuse

Games are a well-known test bed for testing search algorithms and learning methods, and many authors have presented numerous reasons for the research in this area. Nevertheless, they have not received the attention they deserve as software projects. In this paper, we analyze the applicability of software and knowledge reuse in the games domain. In spite of the need to find a good evaluation function, search algorithms and interface design can be said to be the primary concerns. In addition, we will discuss the current state of the main statistical learning methods and how they can be addressed from a software engineering point of view. So, this paper proposes a reliable environment and adequate tools, necessary in order to achieve high levels of reuse in the games domain

A new paradigm for minimax search

This paper introduces a new paradigm for minimax game-tree search algorithms. MT is a memory-enhanced version of Pearl's Test procedure. By changing the way MT is called, a number of best-first game-tree search algorithms can be simply and elegantly constructed (including SSS*). Most of the assessments of minimax search algorithms have been based on simulations. However, these simulations generally do not address two of the key ingredients of high performance game-playing programs: iterative deepening and memory usage. This paper presents experimental data from three game-playing programs (checkers, Othello and chess), covering the range from low to high branching factor. The improved move ordering due to iterative deepening and memory usage results in significantly different results from those portrayed in the literature. Whereas some simulations show alpha-beta expanding almost 100% more leaf nodes than other algorithms [Marsland, Reinefeld & Schaeffer, 1987], our results showed variations of less than 20%. One new instance of our framework MTD(f) out-performs our best alpha-beta searcher (aspiration NegaScout) on leaf nodes, total nodes and execution time. To our knowledge, these are the first reported results that compare both depth-first and best-first algorithms given the same amount of memory

Best-First and Depth-First Minimax Search in practice

Abstract Most practitioners use a variant of the Alpha-Beta algorithm, a simple depth-first procedure, for searching minimax trees. SSS*, with its best-first search strategy, reportedly offers the potential for more efficient search. However, the complex formulation of the algorithm and its alleged excessive memory requirements preclude its use in practice. For two decades, the search efficiency of "smart" best-first SSS* has cast doubt on the effectiveness of "dumb" depth-first Alpha-Beta

The Analysis of Alpha Beta Pruning and MTD(f) Algorithm to Determine the Best Algorithm to be Implemented at Connect Four Prototype

Connect Four is a two-player game which the players take turns dropping discs into a grid to connect 4 of one’s own discs next to each other vertically, horizontally, or diagonally. At Connect Four, Computer requires artificial intelligence (AI) in order to play properly like human. There are many AI algorithms that can be implemented to Connect Four, but the suitable algorithms are unknown. The suitable algorithm means optimal in choosing move and its execution time is not slow at search depth which is deep enough. In this research, analysis and comparison between standard alpha beta (AB) Pruning and MTD(f) will be carried out at the prototype of Connect Four in terms of optimality (win percentage) and speed (execution time and the number of leaf nodes). Experiments are carried out by running computer versus computer mode with 12 different conditions, i.e. varied search depth (5 through 10) and who moves first. The percentage achieved by MTD(f) based on experiments is win 45,83%, lose 37,5% and draw 16,67%. In the experiments with search depth 8, MTD(f) execution time is 35, 19% faster and evaluate 56,27% fewer leaf nodes than AB Pruning. The results of this research are MTD(f) is as optimal as AB Pruning at Connect Four prototype, but MTD(f) on average is faster and evaluates fewer leaf nodes than AB Pruning. The execution time of MTD(f) is not slow and much faster than AB Pruning at search depth which is deep enough