MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155992093 · doi:10.1613/jair.4171

Enhanced Partial Expansion A*

2014· article· en· W2155992093 on OpenAlexaff
Mitchell G. Goldenberg, Ariel Felner, Roni Stern, Gil Sharon, Nathan Sturtevant, Robert C. Holte, Jonathan Schaeffer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsComputer scienceA priori and a posterioriHeuristicBenchmark (surveying)Node (physics)Domain (mathematical analysis)Mathematical optimizationTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When solving instances of problem domains that feature a large branching factor, A* may generate a large number of nodes whose cost is greater than the cost of the optimal solution. We designate such nodes as surplus. Generating surplus nodes and adding them to the OPEN list may dominate both time and memory of the search. A recently introduced variant of A* called Partial Expansion A* (PEA*) deals with the memory aspect of this problem. When expanding a node n, PEA* generates all of its children and puts into OPEN only the children with f = f (n). n is re-inserted in the OPEN list with the f -cost of the best discarded child. This guarantees that surplus nodes are not inserted into OPEN. In this paper, we present a novel variant of A* called Enhanced Partial Expansion A* (EPEA*) that advances the idea of PEA* to address the time aspect. Given a priori domain- and heuristic- specific knowledge, EPEA* generates only the nodes with f = f(n). Although EPEA* is not always applicable or practical, we study several variants of EPEA*, which make it applicable to a large number of domains and heuristics. In particular, the ideas of EPEA* are applicable to IDA* and to the domains where pattern databases are traditionally used. Experimental studies show significant improvements in run-time and memory performance for several standard benchmark applications. We provide several theoretical studies to facilitate an understanding of the new algorithm.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations151
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Artificial Intelligence ResearchSame topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207