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

Common Misconceptions Concerning Heuristic Search

2010· article· en· W2295532854 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

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

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 science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
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