MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2397134496 · doi:10.1609/socs.v3i1.18266

Alternative Forms of Bounded Suboptimal Search

2021· article· en· W2397134496 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 · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBounding overwatchBounded functionConstruct (python library)Mathematical optimizationIterative deepening depth-first searchMathematicsComputer scienceSearch algorithmConstant (computer programming)Beam searchAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceBest-first searchArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research into bounded suboptimal search has focused on the development of epsilon-admissible algorithms which are guaranteed to return solutions that are no more than a factor larger than optimal. In this paper, we consider the problem of how to construct search algorithms that satisfy alternative types of guarantees such as an additive bound. This bounding paradigm requires that the cost of any solution found is no more than the optimal cost plus gamma, which is a user-defined constant. To this end, we provide theorems that define sufficient conditions for developing algorithms for arbitrary bounding paradigms when using best-first search, iterative deepening, or focal list-based search. We then show by experimentation that these theorems can be used to construct effective additively bounded algorithms.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
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