Sequential and parallel algorithms for frontier A* with delayed duplicate detection
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it