MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1521683430 · doi:10.1609/socs.v4i1.18288

Optimal-Generation Variants of EPEA*

2021· article· en· W1521683430 on OpenAlexafffund
Meir Goldenberg, Ariel Felner, Nathan Sturtevant, Robert C. Holte, Jonathan Schaeffer

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaIsrael Science Foundation
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceScope (computer science)Class (philosophy)MathematicsBranching (polymer chemistry)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is known that A* is optimal with respect to the expanded nodes (Dechter and Pearl 1985) (D&P). The exact meaning of this optimality varies depending on the class of algorithms and instances over which A* is claimed to be optimal. A* does not provide any optimality guarantees with respect to the generated nodes. However, such guarantees may be critical for optimally solving instances of domains with a large branching factor. In this paper, we introduce two new variants of the recently introduced Enhanced Partial Expansion A* algorithm (EPEA*) (Felner et al. 2012). We leverage the results of D&P to show that these variants possess optimality with respect to the generated nodes in much the same sense as A* possesses optimality with respect to the expanded nodes. The results in this paper are theoretical. A study of the practical performance of the new variants is beyond the scope of this paper.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial SearchSame topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207