MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167994996

Partial pathfinding using map abstraction and refinement

2005· article· en· W2167994996 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbstractionPathfindingComputer scienceHeuristicDomain (mathematical analysis)Process (computing)Path (computing)Function (biology)Motion planningAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageMathematicsShortest path problemRobot
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classical search algorithms such as A* or IDA* are useful for computing optimal solutions in a single pass, which can then be executed. But in many domains agents either do not have the time to compute complete plans before acting, or should not spend the time to do so, due to the dynamic nature of the environment. Extensions to A* such as LRTA* address this problem by gradually learning an exact heuristic function, but the learning process is quite slow. In this paper we introduce Partial-Refinement A* (PRA*), which can fully interleave planning and acting through path abstraction and refinement. We demonstrate the etfectiveness of PRA* in the domain of real-time strategy (RTS) games. In maps taken from popular RTS games. we show that PRA* is not only able to cleanly interleave planning and execution. but it is also able to do so with only minimal losses of optimality.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.171 · 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