MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1869091735

Sequential and parallel algorithms for frontier A* with delayed duplicate detection

2006· article· en· W1869091735 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Niewiadomski, José Nelson Amaral, Robert C. Holte

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadComputer scienceWorkstationSequence (biology)Parallel computingAlgorithmCluster (spacecraft)Real-time computingOperating system
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present sequential and parallel algorithms for Frontier A * (FA*) algorithm augmented with a form of Delayed Duplicate Detection (DDD). The sequential algorithm, FA*-DDD, overcomes the leak-back problem associated with the combination of FA * and DDD. The parallel algorithm, PFA*-DDD, is a parallel version of FA*-DDD that features a novel workload distribution strategy based on intervals. We outline an implementation of PFA*-DDD designed to run on a cluster of workstations. The implementation computes intervals at runtime that are tailored to fit the workload at hand. Because the implementation distributes the workload in a manner that is both automated and adaptive, it does not require the user to specify a workload mapping function, and, more importantly, it is applicable to arbitrary problems that may be irregular. We present the results of an experimental evaluation of the implementation where it is used to solve instances of the multiple sequence alignment problem on a cluster of workstations running on top of a commodity network. Results demonstrate that the implementation offers improved capability in addition to improved performance.

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations23
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207