MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1592436817 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v24i1.7555

Single-Frontier Bidirectional Search

2010· article· en· W1592436817 on OpenAlexaff
Ariel Felner, Carsten Moldenhauer, Nathan Sturtevant, Jonathan Schaeffer

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersIsrael Science Foundation
KeywordsFrontierNode (physics)Computer scienceTree (set theory)Shortest path problemPath (computing)Task (project management)Current (fluid)Search algorithmRange (aeronautics)Bidirectional searchMathematical optimizationAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceIncremental heuristic searchMathematicsBeam searchEngineeringGraphComputer networkGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the surface, bidirectional search (BDS) is an attractive idea with the potential for significant asymptotic reductions in search effort. However, the results in practice often fall far short of expectations. We introduce a new bidirectional search algorithm, Single-Frontier Bidirectional Searc (SFBDS). Unlike traditional BDS which keeps two frontiers, SFBDS uses a single frontier. Each node in the tree can be seen as an independent task of finding the shortest path between the current start and current goal. At a particular node we can decide to search from start to goal or from goal to start, choosing the direction with the highest potential for minimizing the total work done. Theoretical results give insights as to when this approach will work and experimental data validates the algorithm for a broad range of domains.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations25
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207