MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1826978891

A* search with inconsistent heuristics

2009· article· en· W1826978891 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsComputer scienceHeuristicSocial heuristicsMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early research in heuristic search discovered that using inconsistent heuristics with A * could result in an exponential increase in the number of node expansions. As a result, the use of inconsistent heuristics has largely disappeared from practice. Recently, inconsistent heuristics have been shown to be effective in IDA*, especially when applying the bidirectional pathmax (BPMX) enhancement. This paper presents new worst-case complexity analysis of A*’s behavior with inconsistent heuristics, discusses how BPMX can be used with A*, and gives experimental results justifying the use of inconsistent heuristics in A * searches. 1

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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