Towards a second generation random walk planner: an experimental exploration
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Random walks have become a popular component of recent planning systems. The increased explo-ration is a valuable addition to more exploitative search methods such as Greedy Best First Search (GBFS). A number of successful planners which incorporate random walks have been built. The work presented here aims to exploit the experience gained from building those systems. It begins a systematic study of the design space and alterna-tive choices for building such a system, and de-velops a new random walk planner from scratch, with careful experiments along the way. Four ma-jor insights are: 1. a high state evaluation frequency is usually superior to the endpoint-only evaluation used in earlier systems, 2. adjusting the restarting parameter according to the progress speed in the search space performs better than any fixed setting, 3. biasing the action selection towards preferred operators of only the current state is better than Monte Carlo Helpful Actions, which depend on the number of times an action has been a preferred op-erator in previous walks, and 4. even simple forms of random walk planning can compete with GBFS. 1
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it