MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2741263854 · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2017/599

Additive Merge-and-Shrink Heuristics for Diverse Action Costs

2017· article· en· W2741263854 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHeuristicsMerge (version control)Computer scienceHeuristicMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceMathematicsInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many planning applications, actions can have highly diverse costs. Recent studies focus on the effects of diverse action costs on search algorithms, but not on their effects on domain-independent heuristics. In this paper, we demonstrate there are negative impacts of action cost diversity on merge-and-shrink (M&S), a successful abstraction method for producing high-quality heuristics for planning problems. We propose a new cost partitioning method for M&S to address the negative effects of diverse action costs. We investigate non-unit cost IPC domains, especially those for which diverse action costs have severe negative effects on the quality of the M&S heuristic. Our experiments demonstrate that in these domains, an additive set of M&S heuristics using the new cost partitioning method produces much more informative and effective heuristics than creating a single M&S heuristic which directly encodes diverse costs.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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