MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1487826456 · doi:10.1609/icaps.v23i1.13563

Using Alternative Suboptimality Bounds in Heuristic Search

2013· article· en· W1487826456 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBounding overwatchBounded functionMathematical optimizationHeuristicUpper and lower boundsComputer scienceMathematicsConstruct (python library)Constant (computer programming)AlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most bounded suboptimal algorithms in the search literature have been developed so as to be epsilon-admissible. This means that the solutions found by these algorithms are guaranteed to be no more than a factor of (1 + ε) greater than optimal. However, this is not the only possible form of suboptimality bounding. For example, another possible suboptimality guarantee is that of additive bounding, which requires that the cost of the solution found is no more than the cost of the optimal solution plus a constant gamma.In this work, we consider the problem of developing algorithms so as to satisfy a given, and arbitrary, suboptimality requirement. To do so, we develop a theoretical framework which can be used to construct algorithms for a large class of possible suboptimality paradigms. We then use the framework to develop additively bounded algorithms, and show that in practice these new algorithms effectively trade-off additive solution suboptimality for runtime.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it