Front-to-End Bidirectional Heuristic Search with Near-Optimal Node Expansions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well-known that any admissible unidirectional heuristic search algorithm must expand all states whose f-value is smaller than the optimal solution cost when using a consistent heuristic. Such states are called “surely expanded” (s.e.). A recent study characterized s.e. pairs of states for bidirectional search with consistent heuristics: if a pair of states is s.e. then at least one of the two states must be expanded. This paper derives a lower bound, VC, on the minimum number of expansions required to cover all s.e. pairs, and present a new admissible front-to-end bidirectional heuristic search algorithm, Near-Optimal Bidirectional Search (NBS), that is guaranteed to do no more than 2VC expansions. We further prove that no admissible front-to-end algorithm has a worst case better than 2VC. Experimental results show that NBS competes with or outperforms existing bidirectional search algorithms, and often outperforms A* as well.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".