Mastering Atari, Go, chess and shogi by planning with a learned model | Nature
Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Mastering Atari, Go, chess and shogi by planning with a learned model

Nature volume 588, pages 604–609 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Constructing agents with planning capabilities has long been one of the main challenges in the pursuit of artificial intelligence. Tree-based planning methods have enjoyed huge success in challenging domains, such as chess1 and Go2, where a perfect simulator is available. However, in real-world problems, the dynamics governing the environment are often complex and unknown. Here we present the MuZero algorithm, which, by combining a tree-based search with a learned model, achieves superhuman performance in a range of challenging and visually complex domains, without any knowledge of their underlying dynamics. The MuZero algorithm learns an iterable model that produces predictions relevant to planning: the action-selection policy, the value function and the reward. When evaluated on 57 different Atari games3—the canonical video game environment for testing artificial intelligence techniques, in which model-based planning approaches have historically struggled4—the MuZero algorithm achieved state-of-the-art performance. When evaluated on Go, chess and shogi—canonical environments for high-performance planning—the MuZero algorithm matched, without any knowledge of the game dynamics, the superhuman performance of the AlphaZero algorithm5 that was supplied with the rules of the game.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Planning, acting and training with a learned model.
Fig. 2: Evaluation of MuZero throughout training in chess, shogi, Go and Atari.
Fig. 3: Evaluations of MuZero on Go, all 57 Atari games and Ms. Pac-Man.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

MuZero is trained only on data generated by MuZero itself; no external data were used to produce the results presented in the article. Data for all figures and tables presented are available in JSON format in the Supplementary Information.

Code availability

The Arcade Learning Environment3 is available open source at https://github.com/mgbellemare/Arcade-Learning-Environment. The Go and chess environments are available open source in OpenSpiel52 at https://github.com/deepmind/open_spiel. The pseudocode for the MuZero algorithm can be found in the file pseudocode.py in the Supplementary Information. All the neural architecture details and hyperparameters are described in Methods.

References

  1. Campbell, M., Hoane, A. J. Jr & Hsu, F.-h. Deep Blue. Artif. Intell. 134, 57–83 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Silver, D. et al. Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature 529, 484–489 (2016).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bellemare, M. G., Naddaf, Y., Veness, J. & Bowling, M. The arcade learning environment: an evaluation platform for general agents. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 47, 253–279 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Machado, M. et al. Revisiting the arcade learning environment: evaluation protocols and open problems for general agents. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 61, 523–562 (2018).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Silver, D. et al. A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi, and Go through self-play. Science 362, 1140–1144 (2018).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Schaeffer, J. et al. A world championship caliber checkers program. Artif. Intell. 53, 273–289 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown, N. & Sandholm, T. Superhuman AI for heads-up no-limit poker: Libratus beats top professionals. Science 359, 418–424 (2018).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Moravčík, M. et al. Deepstack: expert-level artificial intelligence in heads-up no-limit poker. Science 356, 508–513 (2017).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Vlahavas, I. & Refanidis, I. Planning and Scheduling Technical Report (EETN, 2013).

  10. Segler, M. H., Preuss, M. & Waller, M. P. Planning chemical syntheses with deep neural networks and symbolic AI. Nature 555, 604–610 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sutton, R. S. & Barto, A. G. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction 2nd edn (MIT Press, 2018).

  12. Deisenroth, M. & Rasmussen, C. PILCO: a model-based and data-efficient approach to policy search. In Proc. 28th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2011 465–472 (Omnipress, 2011).

  13. Heess, N. et al. Learning continuous control policies by stochastic value gradients. In NIPS’15: Proc. 28th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Vol. 2 (eds Cortes, C. et al.) 2944–2952 (MIT Press, 2015).

  14. Levine, S. & Abbeel, P. Learning neural network policies with guided policy search under unknown dynamics. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 27, 1071–1079 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hafner, D. et al. Learning latent dynamics for planning from pixels. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.04551 (2018).

  16. Kaiser, L. et al. Model-based reinforcement learning for atari. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.00374 (2019).

  17. Buesing, L. et al. Learning and querying fast generative models for reinforcement learning. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03006 (2018).

  18. Espeholt, L. et al. IMPALA: scalable distributed deep-RL with importance weighted actor-learner architectures. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML Vol. 80 (eds Dy, J. & Krause, A.) 1407–1416 (2018).

  19. Kapturowski, S., Ostrovski, G., Dabney, W., Quan, J. & Munos, R. Recurrent experience replay in distributed reinforcement learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations (2019).

  20. Horgan, D. et al. Distributed prioritized experience replay. In International Conference on Learning Representations (2018).

  21. Puterman, M. L. Markov Decision Processes: Discrete Stochastic Dynamic Programming 1st edn (John Wiley & Sons, 1994).

  22. Coulom, R. Efficient selectivity and backup operators in Monte-Carlo tree search. In International Conference on Computers and Games 72–83 (Springer, 2006).

  23. Wahlström, N., Schön, T. B. & Deisenroth, M. P. From pixels to torques: policy learning with deep dynamical models. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.02251 (2015).

  24. Watter, M., Springenberg, J. T., Boedecker, J. & Riedmiller, M. Embed to control: a locally linear latent dynamics model for control from raw images. In NIPS’15: Proc. 28th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Vol. 2 (eds Cortes, C. et al.) 2746–2754 (MIT Press, 2015).

  25. Ha, D. & Schmidhuber, J. Recurrent world models facilitate policy evolution. In NIPS’18: Proc. 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Bengio, S. et al.) 2455–2467 (Curran Associates, 2018).

  26. Gelada, C., Kumar, S., Buckman, J., Nachum, O. & Bellemare, M. G. DeepMDP: learning continuous latent space models for representation learning. Proc. 36th International Conference on Machine Learning: Volume 97 of Proc. Machine Learning Research (eds Chaudhuri, K. & Salakhutdinov, R.) 2170–2179 (PMLR, 2019).

  27. van Hasselt, H., Hessel, M. & Aslanides, J. When to use parametric models in reinforcement learning? Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05243 (2019).

  28. Tamar, A., Wu, Y., Thomas, G., Levine, S. & Abbeel, P. Value iteration networks. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 29, 2154–2162 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Silver, D. et al. The predictron: end-to-end learning and planning. In Proc. 34th International Conference on Machine Learning Vol. 70 (eds Precup, D. & Teh, Y. W.) 3191–3199 (JMLR, 2017).

  30. Farahmand, A. M., Barreto, A. & Nikovski, D. Value-aware loss function for model-based reinforcement learning. In Proc. 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics: Volume 54 of Proc. Machine Learning Research (eds Singh, A. & Zhu, J) 1486–1494 (PMLR, 2017).

  31. Farahmand, A. Iterative value-aware model learning. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 31, 9090–9101 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Farquhar, G., Rocktaeschel, T., Igl, M. & Whiteson, S. TreeQN and ATreeC: differentiable tree planning for deep reinforcement learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations (2018).

  33. Oh, J., Singh, S. & Lee, H. Value prediction network. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 30, 6118–6128 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I. & Hinton, G. E. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 25, 1097–1105 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  35. He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S. & Sun, J. Identity mappings in deep residual networks. In 14th European Conference on Computer Vision 630–645 (2016).

  36. Hessel, M. et al. Rainbow: combining improvements in deep reinforcement learning. In Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2018).

  37. Schmitt, S., Hessel, M. & Simonyan, K. Off-policy actor-critic with shared experience replay. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.11583 (2019).

  38. Azizzadenesheli, K. et al. Surprising negative results for generative adversarial tree search. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1806.05780 (2018).

  39. Mnih, V. et al. Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature 518, 529–533 (2015).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Open, A. I. OpenAI five. OpenAI https://blog.openai.com/openai-five/ (2018).

  41. Vinyals, O. et al. Grandmaster level in StarCraft II using multi-agent reinforcement learning. Nature 575, 350–354 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Jaderberg, M. et al. Reinforcement learning with unsupervised auxiliary tasks. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.05397 (2016).

  43. Silver, D. et al. Mastering the game of Go without human knowledge. Nature 550, 354–359 (2017).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Kocsis, L. & Szepesvári, C. Bandit based Monte-Carlo planning. In European Conference on Machine Learning 282–293 (Springer, 2006).

  45. Rosin, C. D. Multi-armed bandits with episode context. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 61, 203–230 (2011).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  46. Schadd, M. P., Winands, M. H., Van Den Herik, H. J., Chaslot, G. M.-B. & Uiterwijk, J. W. Single-player Monte-Carlo tree search. In International Conference on Computers and Games 1–12 (Springer, 2008).

  47. Pohlen, T. et al. Observe and look further: achieving consistent performance on Atari. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.11593 (2018).

  48. Schaul, T., Quan, J., Antonoglou, I. & Silver, D. Prioritized experience replay. In International Conference on Learning Representations (2016).

  49. Cloud TPU. Google Cloud https://cloud.google.com/tpu/ (2019).

  50. Coulom, R. Whole-history rating: a Bayesian rating system for players of time-varying strength. In International Conference on Computers and Games 113–124 (2008).

  51. Nair, A. et al. Massively parallel methods for deep reinforcement learning. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.04296 (2015).

  52. Lanctot, M. et al. OpenSpiel: a framework for reinforcement learning in games. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.09453 (2019).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank L. Bennett, O. Smith and C. Apps for organizational assistance; K. Kavukcuoglu for reviewing the paper; T. Anthony, M. Lai, N. Tomasev, U. Paquet, S. Ghaisas for many discussions; and the rest of the DeepMind team for their support.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Thomas Hubert, David Silver

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DeepMind, London, UK

    Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Thomas Hubert, Karen Simonyan, Laurent Sifre, Simon Schmitt, Arthur Guez, Edward Lockhart, Demis Hassabis, Thore Graepel, Timothy Lillicrap & David Silver

  2. University College London, London, UK

    Ioannis Antonoglou, Thore Graepel & David Silver

Authors
  1. Julian Schrittwieser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ioannis Antonoglou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Hubert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karen Simonyan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Laurent Sifre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Simon Schmitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Arthur Guez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Edward Lockhart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Demis Hassabis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Thore Graepel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Timothy Lillicrap
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. David Silver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.S., I.A., T.H. and D.S. designed the MuZero algorithm with advice from A.G., K.S., L.S., E.L., T.L. and T.G.; J.S., I.A., T.H. and S.S. implemented the MuZero program, ran experiments and analysed data. D.S., J.S., I.A. and T.H. wrote the paper with contributions from A.G., K.S., L.S., E.L., T.L., T.G. and D.H.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Silver.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

DeepMind filed Greek patent GR20200100037 on 28 January 2020, covering the MuZero algorithm described in this paper, listing the authors J.S., I.A. and T.H. as inventors. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature thanks Jaap van den Herik and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Figures S1-S5 and Supplementary Tables S1-S2.

Supplementary Data

The ZIP file contains Supplementary Data.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Hubert, T. et al. Mastering Atari, Go, chess and shogi by planning with a learned model. Nature 588, 604–609 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-03051-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-03051-4

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing AI and Robotics

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: AI and Robotics newsletter — what matters in AI and robotics research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: AI and Robotics