Show Me the Way! Bilevel Search for Synthesizing Programmatic Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The synthesis of programmatic strategies requires one to search in large non-differentiable spaces of computer programs. Current search algorithms use self-play approaches to guide this search. The issue with these approaches is that the guiding function often provides a weak search signal. This is because self-play functions only measure how well a program performs against other programs. Thus, while small changes to a losing program might not transform it into a winning one, such changes might represent steps in the direction of a winning program. In this paper we introduce a bilevel search algorithm that searches concurrently in the space of programs and in a space of state features. Each iteration of the search in the space of features defines a set of target features that the search in the program space attempts to achieve (i.e., features one observes while following the strategy encoded in a program). We hypothesize the combination of a self-play function and a feature-based one provides a stronger search signal for synthesis. While both functions are used to guide the search in the program space, the self-play function is used to guide the search in the feature space, to allow for the selection of target features that are more likely to lead to winning programs. We evaluated our bilevel algorithm in MicroRTS, a real-time strategy game. Our results show that the bilevel search synthesizes stronger strategies than methods that search only in the program space. Also, the strategies our method synthesizes obtained the highest winning rate in a simulated tournament with several baseline agents, including the best agents from the two latest MicroRTS competitions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".