Searching for Programmatic Policies in Semantic Spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Syntax-guided synthesis is commonly used to generate programs encoding policies. In this approach, the set of programs, that can be written in a domain-specific language defines the search space, and an algorithm searches within this space for programs that encode strong policies. In this paper, we propose an alternative method for synthesizing programmatic policies, where we search within an approximation of the language's semantic space. We hypothesized that searching in semantic spaces is more sample-efficient compared to syntax-based spaces. Our rationale is that the search is more efficient if the algorithm evaluates different agent behaviors as it searches through the space, a feature often missing in syntax-based spaces. This is because small changes in the syntax of a program often do not result in different agent behaviors. We define semantic spaces by learning a library of programs that present different agent behaviors. Then, we approximate the semantic space by defining a neighborhood function for local search algorithms, where we replace parts of the current candidate program with programs from the library. We evaluated our hypothesis in a real-time strategy game called MicroRTS. Empirical results support our hypothesis that searching in semantic spaces can be more sample-efficient than searching in syntax-based spaces.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".