On the Completeness of Best-First Search Variants That Use Random 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
While suboptimal best-first search algorithms like Greedy Best-First Search are frequently used when building automated planning systems, their greedy nature can make them susceptible to being easily misled by flawed heuristics. This weakness has motivated the development of best-first search variants like epsilon-greedy node selection, type-based exploration, and diverse best-first search, which all use random exploration to mitigate the impact of heuristic error. In this paper, we provide a theoretical justification for this increased robustness by formally analyzing how these algorithms behave on infinite graphs. In particular, we show that when using these approaches on any infinite graph, the probability of not finding a solution can be made arbitrarily small given enough time. This result is shown to hold for a class of algorithms that includes the three mentioned above, regardless of how misleading the heuristic is.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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