MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124729717 · doi:10.1109/icpp.2002.1040888

Distributed game-tree search using transposition table driven work scheduling

2003· article· en· W2124729717 on OpenAlexafffund
Akihiro Kishimoto, Jonathan Schaeffer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceTransposition (logic)Tree (set theory)Parallel computingParallel algorithmScheduling (production processes)Processor schedulingDepth-first searchParallelism (grammar)Alpha (finance)Search algorithmAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The /spl alpha//spl beta/ algorithm for two-player game-tree search has a notorious reputation as being a challenging algorithm for achieving reasonable parallel performance. MTD(f), a new /spl alpha//spl beta/ variant, has become the sequential algorithm of choice for practitioners. Unfortunately, MTD(f) inherits most of the parallel obstacles of /spl alpha//spl beta/, as well as creating new performance hurdles. Transposition-table-driven scheduling (TDS) is a new parallel search algorithm that has proven to be effective in the single-agent (one-player) domain. This paper presents TDSAB, the first time TDS parallelism has been applied to two-player search (the MTD(f) algorithm). Results show that TDSAB gives comparable speedups to that achieved by conventional parallel /spl alpha//spl beta/ algorithms. However, since this is a parallelization of a superior sequential algorithm the results in fact are better. This paper shows that the TDS idea can be extended to more challenging search domains.

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 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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations20
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207