Robustness of Real-Time Heuristic Search Algorithms to Read/Write Error in Externally Stored Heuristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real-time heuristic search algorithms follow the agent-centered search paradigm wherein the agent has access only to information local to the agent’s current position in the environment. This allows agents with constant-bounded computational faculties (e.g., memory) to take on search problems of progressively increasing sizes. As the agent’s memory does not scale with the size of the search problem, the heuristic must necessarily be stored externally, in the environment. Storing the heuristic in the environment brings the extra challenge of read/write errors. In video games, introducing error artificially to the heuristics can make the non-player characters (NPC) behave more naturally. In this paper, we evaluate effects of such errors on real-time heuristic search algorithms. In particular, we empirically study the effects of heuristic read redundancy on algorithm performance and compare its effects to the existing technique of using weights in heuristic learning. Finally, we evaluate a recently proposed technique of correcting the heuristic with a one-step error term in the presence of read/write error.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".