A Theoretical Framework for Studying Random Walk Planning
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".