Bibliographic record
Abstract
For some two-player games (e.g. Go), no accurate and inexpensive heuristic is known for evaluating leaves of a search tree. For other games (e.g. chess), a heuristic is known (sum of piece values). For other games (e.g. Hex), only a local heuristic — one that compares children reliably, but non-siblings poorly — is known (cell voltage drop in the Shannon/Anshelevich electric circuit model). In this paper we introduce a search algorithm for a two-player perfect information game with a reasonable local heuristic. Sibling Conspiracy Number Search (SCNS) is an anytime best-first version of Conspiracy Number Search based not on evaluation of leaf states of the search tree, but — for each node — on relative evaluation scores of all children of that node. SCNS refines CNS search value intervals, converging to Proof Number Search. SCNS is a good framework for a game player. We tested SCNS in the domain of Hex, with promising results. We implemented an 11-by-11 SCNS Hex bot, DeepHex. We competed DeepHex against current Hex bot champion MoHex, a Monte-Carlo Tree Search player, and previous Hex bot champion Wolve, an Alpha-Beta Search player. DeepHex widely outperforms Wolve at all time levels, and narrowly outperforms MoHex once time reaches 4min/move.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".