Curriculum Generation for Learning Guiding Functions in State-Space Search Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates methods for training parameterized functions for guiding state-space search algorithms. Existing work commonly generates data for training such guiding functions by solving problem instances while leveraging the current version of the guiding function. As a result, as training progresses, the guided search algorithm can solve more difficult instances that are, in turn, used to further train the guiding function. These methods assume that a set of problem instances of varied difficulty is provided. Since previous work was not designed to distinguish the instances that the search algorithm can solve from those that cannot be solved with the current guiding function, the algorithm commonly wastes time attempting and failing to solve many of these instances. In this paper, we improve upon these training methods by generating a curriculum for learning the guiding function that directly addresses this issue. Namely, we propose and evaluate a Teacher-Student Curriculum (TSC) approach where the teacher is an evolutionary strategy that attempts to generate problem instances of ``correct difficulty'' and the student is a guided search algorithm utilizing the current guiding function. The student attempts to solve the problem instances generated by the teacher. We conclude with experiments demonstrating that TSC outperforms the current state-of-the-art Bootstrap Learning method in three representative benchmark domains and three guided search algorithms, with respect to the time required to solve all instances of the test set.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".