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

Alternative Forms of Bounded Suboptimal Search

2021· article· en· W2397134496 on OpenAlexafffund
Richard Valenzano, Shahab Jabbari Arfaee, Jordan Thayer, Roni Stern

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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.014
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

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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial SearchSame topicMachine Learning and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207