MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Learning where you are going and from whence you came: h- and g-cost learning in real-time heuristic search

2011· article· en· W2404409324 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsComputer scienceHeuristicMachine learningArtificial intelligenceHyper-heuristicMathematical optimizationMathematicsRobot learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real-time agent-centric algorithms have been used for learning and solving problems since the in-troduction of the LRTA * algorithm in 1990. In this time period, numerous variants have been pro-duced, however, they have generally followed the same approach in varying parameters to learn a heuristic which estimates the remaining cost to arrive at a goal state. Recently, a different ap-proach, RIBS, was suggested which, instead of learning costs to the goal, learns costs from the start state. RIBS can solve some problems faster, but in other problems has poor performance. We present a new algorithm, f-cost Learning Real-Time A * (f-LRTA*), which combines both ap-proaches, simultaneously learning distances from the start and heuristics to the goal. An empiri-cal evaluation demonstrates that f-LRTA * outper-forms both RIBS and LRTA*-style approaches in a range of scenarios. 1

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207