Merged and pushed.

Looks good!

I fixed the points raised in your code review and ran experiments. Here are the results:

http://ai.cs.unibas.ch/_tmp_files/seipp/issue540-v1-opt-issue540-base-issue540-v1-compare.html
http://ai.cs.unibas.ch/_tmp_files/seipp/issue540-v1-sat-issue540-base-issue540-v1-compare.html

The patch looks fine to me.

Given that the evaluators have caused significant overhead and this touches
sensitive parts of the code, I'd feel a bit happier if we could at least do a
small experiment, though. Something like blind search and lama-first on the
satisficing suite and blind and ipdb on the optimal suite. A 300 second timeout
should be plenty enough.

"we should cause it's" => "..its". Argh!

I'm not sure this is a good idea:

1) There is no way to tell from the output which state this applies to. It's the
first state that *this* heuristic has been evaluated for (with this search
progress object), but this can be any state if for some reason some heuristics
are sometimes skipped (e.g. selective max).

2) This function can be called from many different places, directly or
indirectly, so there is no control over where this output is generated. It could
be generated in the middle of unrelated information. For output that is
important to us, "explicit is better than implicit": we should cause it's
creation directly.

For what it's worth, I'm not sure this needs to live in the search progress
class at all, i.e., not sure we should really store the initial h values in an
attribute like we currently do. We could give the evaluation context a method
for dumping its stored information and then use this for the initial state.

Can't we log the initial h value directly when we process a heuristic for the first time in 
SearchProgress::process_heuristic_value()?

Here is my proposed change (of course other things could be removed and simplified then):

diff -r 737893533de3 src/search/search_progress.cc
--- a/src/search/search_progress.cc     Mon Jun 22 19:39:44 2015 +0200
+++ b/src/search/search_progress.cc     Tue Jun 23 12:06:57 2015 +0200
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
     if (was_inserted) {
         // We haven't seen this heuristic before.
         initial_heuristic_values[heuristic] = h;
+        output_line("Initial", heuristic, h);
         return true;
     } else {
         int &best_h = iter->second;