Lookahead pathologies for single agent search
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Admissible and consistent heuristic functions are usually preferred in single-agent heuristic search as they guarantee optimal solutions with complete search methods such as A* and IDA*. Larger problems, however, frequently make a complete search intractable due to space and/or time limitations. In particular, a path-planning agent in a realtime strategy game may need to take an action before its complete search has the time to finish. In such cases, incomplete search techniques (such as RTA*, SRTA*, RTDP, DTA*) can be used. Such algorithms conduct a limited ply lookahead and then evaluate the states envisioned using a heuristic function. The action selected on the basis of such evaluations can be suboptimal due to the incompleteness of search and inaccuracies in the heuristic. It is usually believed that deeper lookahead increases the chances of taking the optimal action. In this paper, we demonstrate that this is not necessarily the case, even when admissible and consistent heuristic functions are used.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".