MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2730689032 · doi:10.1609/aiide.v12i1.12882

Per-Map Algorithm Selection in Real-Time Heuristic Search

2016· article· en· W2730689032 on OpenAlexafffund
Vadim Bulitko

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPathfindingComputer scienceHeuristicTask (project management)Selection (genetic algorithm)Incremental heuristic searchPlan (archaeology)Artificial intelligenceSearch algorithmAlgorithmBeam searchMachine learningTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real-time heuristic search is suitable for time-sensitive pathfinding and planning tasks when an AI-controlled non-playable character must interleave its planning and plan execution. Since its inception in the early 90s, numerous real-time heuristic search algorithms have been proposed. Many of the algorithms also have control parameters leaving a practitioner with a bewildering array of choices. Recent work treated the task of algorithm and parameter selection as a search problem in itself. Such automatically found algorithms outperformed previously known manually designed algorithms on the standard video-game pathfinding benchmarks. In this paper we follow up by selecting an algorithm and parameters automatically per map. Our sampling-based approach is efficient on the standard video-game pathfinding benchmarks. We also apply the approach to per-problem algorithm selection and while it is effective there as well, it is not practical. We offer suggestions on making it so.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital EntertainmentSame topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207