MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740793701 · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2017/72

Online Bridged Pruning for Real-Time Search with Arbitrary Lookaheads

2017· article· en· W2740793701 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos Hernández, Adi Botea, Jorge A. Baier, Vadim Bulitko

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPruningComputer scienceIterative deepening depth-first searchBeam searchArtificial intelligenceSearch problemState (computer science)Search algorithmIncremental heuristic searchMachine learningState spaceTime complexityAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real-time search algorithms are relevant to time-sensitive decision-making domains such as video games and robotics. In such settings, the agent is required to decide on each action under a constant time bound, regardless of the search space size. Despite recent progress, poor-quality solutions can be produced mainly due to state re-visitation. Different techniques have been developed to reduce such a re-visitation with state pruning showing promise. In this paper, we propose a novel pruning approach applicable to the wide class of real-time search algorithms. Given a local search space of arbitrary size, our technique aggressively prunes away all states in its interior, possibly adding new edges to maintain the connectivity of the search space frontier. An experimental evaluation shows that our pruning often improves the performance of a base real-time search algorithm by over an order of magnitude. This allows our implemented system to outperform state-of-the-art real-time search algorithms used in the evaluation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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