Heuristic Planning in Adversarial Dynamic Domains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agents in highly dynamic adversarial domains, such as RTS games, must continually make time-critical decisions to adapt their behaviour to the changing environment. In such a context, the planning agent must consider his opponent's actions as uncontrollable, or at best influenceable. In general nondeterministic domains where there is no clear turn-taking protocol, most heuristic search methods to date do not explicitly reason about the opponent's actions when guiding the state space exploration towards goal or high-reward states. In contrast, we are investigating a domain-independent heuristic planning approach which reasons about the dynamics and uncontrollability of the opponent's behaviours in order to provide better guidance to the search process of the planner. Our planner takes as input the opponent's behaviours recognized by a plan recognition module and uses them to identify opponent's actions that lead to low-utility projected states. We believe such explicit heuristic reasoning about the potential behaviours of the opponent is crucial when planning in adversarial domains, yet is missing in today's planning approaches.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".