Search-guided self-play with every-sibling labels converts compute into long-horizon strength
A search-guided self-play loop — actors that run a fair public-information search at every visited position, record the value of every legal sibling column under aligned chance scenarios, and train a public board evaluator on those successor-closed labels, which then becomes the leaf of the next iteration's search — produces a frozen public student whose mean whole-game score on fresh paired development cohorts rises with the compute spent per iteration, and at sufficient scale exceeds fair D4's mean by a preregistered margin.
On this page
- Created
- Updated
Every learned board-scorer in this repository has been trained once, from data generated by something else, and then judged. This theory asks a different question: what if the data and the scorer improved each other in a loop?
The proposal is the AlphaZero pattern, adapted to a one-player game with luck and a hard information boundary. Many games run at once. At every position, a fair search evaluates every legal column under shared imagined futures — successor-closed data by construction, which is exactly what the sibling trap kept punishing. A learner trains a board evaluator on those labels. The trained evaluator then becomes the leaf of the next round's search, which produces better labels than the evaluator that guided it, and the cycle repeats. That feedback is the reason more compute might buy longer-horizon play rather than a more confident copy of the same bias.
The candidate is the frozen public student that falls out of any iteration; the comparator is unchanged fair D4. The full build, the staging order, and where each stage would run are written up on what a large-scale run would look like.
Where it stands. Nothing has been run. The record is draft / untested,
its evidence tier is proposal, and there is no implementation and no result.
It exists so that the plan and its failure tests are on paper before any compute
is spent — see also is more computation the
answer?, which explains how
often that assumption has failed here.
How you could help. The theory names its own cheap kill-shots, and all of them run on one workstation. Stage 0 is a paper audit: can existing every-sibling data seed the first dataset without opening new seeds? Stage 3 asks whether held-out sibling ranking improves across iterations on the locked panel — if three iterations do not improve, the loop is falsified before a cluster is ever requested. Stage 4 doubles actor compute with everything else held fixed and looks for a paired 32-game gain beyond the noise band. A clean negative at any of those stages is a finished contribution.
Technical recordThe registered claim, mechanism and falsification criteria
- Claim
- A search-guided self-play loop — actors that run a fair public-information search at every visited position, record the value of every legal sibling column under aligned chance scenarios, and train a public board evaluator on those successor-closed labels, which then becomes the leaf of the next iteration's search — produces a frozen public student whose mean whole-game score on fresh paired development cohorts rises with the compute spent per iteration, and at sufficient scale exceeds fair D4's mean by a preregistered margin.
- Mechanism
- Most learned evaluators in the ledger failed at ranking siblings because training data labelled only the move that was played (status.md §4-§7; sibling extrapolation). The distributional-afterstate pilot (TH-20260820-distributional-afterstate-ranker-7aba7fb3) removed that defect — it labelled every legal sibling under chance scenarios shared across siblings — and its four recorded pilot experiments relocate the bottleneck rather than resolving it: label stability required raising aligned scenarios from 8 to 256, and the resulting model still lost to fair D4 on ranking, with its own result record naming an undertrained checkpoint (11 of 20 epochs) and a weak D1-continuation teacher as the likely causes. This theory claims the missing element is the loop: using a search to produce the labels makes them stronger than the evaluator that guided the search (policy improvement), and feeding the trained evaluator back as that search's leaf and repeating is approximate policy iteration. Each iteration's labels then come from a strictly stronger searcher, which is the mechanism by which additional compute - more actors, more aligned scenarios per label, deeper or wider search per label, more iterations, longer training - turns into longer-horizon play rather than into a more confident copy of the same bias. It is the AlphaZero pattern adapted to a single-player stochastic game with a hard information boundary. No iteration of that loop has been run in this repository.
- Falsification criteria
- Pilot scale (this workstation): after a preregistered number of iterations, the evaluator's held-out sibling ranking on a locked every-sibling panel (top-1 and pairwise agreement with the fair-D4 gold standard, as in the 477-root panel) does not improve across iterations, or never reaches fair D4's own agreement.
- Compute response: doubling actor compute between two consecutive iterations, with the data pipeline and learner held fixed, produces no paired SCREEN-tier (32-game) mean-score improvement beyond the whole-game bootstrap interval.
- Deployment: the frozen public student of any iteration, evaluated through the public interface on a fresh paired 64-game development cohort, does not exceed fair D4's mean with a one-sided 95% whole-game bootstrap lower bound on the paired difference above zero.
- Information boundary: any student that reads seed, hidden values, future discs, score, level, or move number is disqualified regardless of score.
- Information class
- public-policy
- Lifecycle
- draft
- Assessment
- untested
- Evidence tier
- proposal
- Evidence references
docs/research/status.mdresearch/results/RS-20260820T094500Z-5c1e9a04.jsonresearch/results/RS-20260820T114500Z-2b7c9e31.jsonresearch/results/RS-20260820T142500Z-8f4a2d17.jsonresearch/results/RS-20260820T184500Z-63c0a8e2.jsondocs/exploratory/finding-12-fair-planner-ceiling-extended.mddocs/exploratory/finding-13-fast-engine.mddocs/exploratory/gpu-01-rocm-enablement.mddocs/hardware/amd-ryzen-halo.mdresearch/results/RS-20260821T104500Z-77d21e90.json
Agent contextHow to extend this record
To add a reader-facing explanation, write web/content/research/TH-20260821-search-guided-self-play-at-scale-299ed02f.mdx; it renders above this record on the next request. The registered record itself is in the technical record above.
Record file: research/theories/TH-20260821-search-guided-self-play-at-scale-299ed02f.json, validated against research/schemas/theory-v1.schema.json.
Registered by Claude Code / claude-fable-5.