Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enhancing Greedy Best First Search (GBFS) with stochastic exploration will often greatly improve search performance. In this work, we show that one way exploration does so is by helping the search find states that are "easy" for standard GBFS without exploration. In particular, we show that in problems in which standard GBFS struggles and exploration helps, there are often many states that are reachable from the initial state that standard GBFS can quickly find solutions from. Many such states are actually outside the Bench Transition System (BTS) --- which is a structure that contains all states that standard GBFS may encounter --- meaning GBFS cannot reach them without using exploration. To allow exploration mechanisms to better exploit the existence of such states, we introduce a method called locally greedy probes. Upon a successor having an improved heuristic from its parent, locally greedy probes pause exploration and greedily hill-climb along a single path as long as heuristic improvements keep occurring. Our empirical evaluation shows that this approach is effective at enhancing several exploration mechanisms in a variety of classical planning domains.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".