MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1594463172 · doi:10.5555/2484920.2485009

Stratified tree search: a novel suboptimal heuristic search algorithm

2013· article· en· W1594463172 on OpenAlexaff
Levi H. S. Lelis, Sandra Zilles, Robert C. Holte

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeam searchIncremental heuristic searchHeuristicsBest-first searchHeuristicSearch algorithmBenchmark (surveying)AlgorithmComputer scienceBidirectional searchPartition (number theory)Depth-first searchSearch treeNull-move heuristicIterative deepening depth-first searchBeam stack searchTree traversalConsistent heuristicMathematical optimizationMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional heuristic search algorithms use the ranking of states that a heuristic function provides to guide the search. In this paper—with the objective of improving suboptimality and runtime of search algorithms when only weak heuristics are available—we present Stratified Tree Search (STS), a suboptimal heuristic search algorithm that uses a heuristic to partition the state space to guide the search. We call this partition a type system. STS assumes that nodes of the same type will lead to solutions of the same cost. Thus, STS expands only one node of each type in every level of search. We show that in general STS offers a good tradeoff between solution quality and search speed by varying the size of the type system. However, in some cases, STS might not provide a fine adjustment of this tradeoff. We present a variant of STS, Beam STS (BSTS), that allows one to make fine adjustments of this tradeoff. BSTS combines the ideas of STS with those of Beam Search. Our empirical results in benchmark domains show that both STS and BSTS can find solutions of lower suboptimality in less time than standard heuristic search algorithms for finding suboptimal solutions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207