Learning Heuristic Functions Faster by Using Predicted Solution Costs
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jabbari Arfaee, Zilles, and Holte presented the bootstrap learning system, a system that learns strong heuristic functions for state-space problems. They showed that IDA* with a bootstrap heuristic is able to quickly find near-optimal solutions in several problem domains. However, the process the bootstrap method uses to learn heuristic functions is time-consuming: it is on the order of days. In this paper we present a learning system that uses an approximation method instead of an exact one to generate the training set required to learn heuristics. We showed recently that solution costs can often be quickly and accurately predicted without having to actually find a solution. In this paper we apply this idea to speedup the process of learning heuristics. In contrast with other learning approaches that use search algorithms to solve problem instances to generate the training set, our system uses a solution cost predictor. We reduce the time required to learn strong heuristics from days to minutes on the domains tested.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it