What Can We Learn Even from the Weakest? Learning Sketches for Programmatic Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we show that behavioral cloning can be used to learn effective sketches of programmatic strategies. We show that even the sketches learned by cloning the behavior of weak players can help the synthesis of programmatic strategies. This is because even weak players can provide helpful information, e.g., that a player must choose an action in their turn of the game. If behavioral cloning is not employed, the synthesizer needs to learn even the most basic information by playing the game, which can be computationally expensive. We demonstrate empirically the advantages of our sketch-learning approach with simulated annealing and UCT synthesizers. We evaluate our synthesizers in the games of Can't Stop and MicroRTS. The sketch-based synthesizers are able to learn stronger programmatic strategies than their original counterparts. Our synthesizers generate strategies of Can't Stop that defeat a traditional programmatic strategy for the game. They also synthesize strategies that defeat the best performing method from the latest MicroRTS competition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".