MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295532854 · doi:10.1609/socs.v1i1.18160

Common Misconceptions Concerning Heuristic Search

2010· article· en· W2295532854 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert C. Holte

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHeuristicsIncremental heuristic searchHeuristicNode (physics)Null-move heuristicBeam searchConsistent heuristicBidirectional searchSimple (philosophy)Computer scienceBest-first searchSearch algorithmFunction (biology)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmEpistemologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the following statements about heuristic search, which are commonly held to be true:More accurate heuristics result in fewer node expansions by A* and IDA*.A* does fewer node expansions than any other equally informed algorithm that finds optimal solutions. Any admissible heuristic can be turned into a consistent heuristic by a simple technique called pathmax.In search spaces whose operators all have the same cost A* with the heuristic function h(s)=0 for all states, s, is the same as breadth-first search.Bidirectional A* stops when the forward and backward search frontiers meet.The paper demonstrates that all these statements are false and provides alternative statements that are true.

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.136
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.136
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.048
Scholarly communication0.0100.017
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0090.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations34
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial SearchSame topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207