A Theoretical Framework for Studying Random Walk Planning
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 are a relatively new component used in several state of the art satisficing planners. Empirical results have been mixed: while the approach clearly outperforms more systematic search methods such as weighted A* on many planning domains, it fails in many others. So far, the explanations for these empirical results have been somewhat ad hoc. This paper proposes a formal framework for comparing the performance of random walk and systematic search methods. Fair homogenous graphs are proposed as a graph class that represents characteristics of the state space of prototypical planning domains, and is simple enough to allow a theoretical analysis of the performance of both random walk and systematic search algorithms. This gives well-founded insights into the relative strength and weaknesses of these approaches. The close relation of the models to some well-known planning domains is shown through simplified but semi-realistic planning domains that fulfill the constraints of the models. One main result is that in contrast to systematic search methods, for which the branching factor plays a decisive role, the performance of random walk methods is determined to a large degree by the Regress Factor, the ratio between the probabilities of progressing towards and regressing away from a goal with an action. The performance of random walk and systematic search methods can be compared by considering both branching and regress factors of a state space.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 it