Adding Local Exploration to Greedy Best-First Search in Satisficing Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greedy Best-First Search (GBFS) is a powerful algorithm at the heart of many state of the art satisficing planners. One major weakness of GBFS is its behavior in so-called uninformative heuristic regions (UHRs) - parts of the search space in which no heuristic provides guidance towards states with improved heuristic values. This work analyzes the problem of UHRs in planning in detail, and proposes a two level search framework as a solution. In Greedy Best-First Search with Local Exploration (GBFS-LE), a local exploration is started from within a global GBFS whenever the search seems stuck in UHRs. Two different local exploration strategies are developed and evaluated experimentally: Local GBFS (LS) and Local Random Walk Search (LRW). The two new planners LAMA-LS and LAMA-LRW integrate these strategies into the GBFS component of LAMA-2011. Both are shown to yield clear improvements in terms of both coverage and search time on standard International Planning Competition benchmarks, especially for domains that are proven to have large or un- bounded UHRs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".