Scrubbing During Learning In Real-time Heuristic Search
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
Real-time agent-centered heuristic search is a well-studied problem where an agent that can only reason locally about the world must travel to a goal location using bounded computation and memory at each step. Many algorithms have been proposed for this problem and theoretical results have also been derived for the worst-case performance with simple examples demonstrating worst-case performance in practice. Lower bounds, however, have not been widely studied. In this paper we study best-case performance more generally and derive theoretical lower bounds for reaching the goal using LRTA*, a canonical example of a real-time agent-centered heuristic search algorithm. The results show that, given some reasonable restrictions on the state space and the heuristic function, the number of steps an LRTA*-like algorithm requires to reach the goal will grow asymptotically faster than the state space, resulting in ``scrubbing'' where the agent repeatedly visits the same state. We then show that while the asymptotic analysis does not hold for more complex real-time search algorithms, experimental results suggest that it is still descriptive of practical performance.
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 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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