MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122128939 · doi:10.1613/jair.1789

Learning in Real-Time Search: A Unifying Framework

2006· article· en· W2122128939 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsComputer scienceHeuristicScalabilityCompleteness (order theory)Function (biology)Convergence (economics)Control (management)Machine learningMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real-time search methods are suited for tasks in which the agent is interacting with an initially unknown environment in real time. In such simultaneous planning and learning problems, the agent has to select its actions in a limited amount of time, while sensing only a local part of the environment centered at the agent's current location. Real-time heuristic search agents select actions using a limited lookahead search and evaluating the frontier states with a heuristic function. Over repeated experiences, they refine heuristic values of states to avoid infinite loops and to converge to better solutions. The wide spread of such settings in autonomous software and hardware agents has led to an explosion of real-time search algorithms over the last two decades. Not only is a potential user confronted with a hodgepodge of algorithms, but he also faces the choice of control parameters they use. In this paper we address both problems. The first contribution is an introduction of a simple three-parameter framework (named LRTS) which extracts the core ideas behind many existing algorithms. We then prove that LRTA*, epsilon-LRTA*, SLA*, and gamma-Trap algorithms are special cases of our framework. Thus, they are unified and extended with additional features. Second, we prove completeness and convergence of any algorithm covered by the LRTS framework. Third, we prove several upper-bounds relating the control parameters and solution quality. Finally, we analyze the influence of the three control parameters empirically in the realistic scalable domains of real-time navigation on initially unknown maps from a commercial role-playing game as well as routing in ad hoc sensor networks.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.245 · 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