MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2759836588 · doi:10.1609/icaps.v27i1.13825

Sufficient Conditions for Node Expansion in Bidirectional Heuristic Search

2017· article· en· W2759836588 on OpenAlexafffund
Juergen Eckerle, Jingwei Chen, Nathan Sturtevant, Sandra Zilles, Robert C. Holte

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNode (physics)HeuristicsMathematical optimizationClass (philosophy)Bidirectional searchHeuristicIncremental heuristic searchSearch algorithmBeam searchComputer scienceFront (military)Focus (optics)MathematicsAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we study bidirectional state space search with consistent heuristics, with a focus on obtaining sufficient conditions for node expansion, that is, conditions characterizing nodes that must be expanded by any admissible bidirectional search algorithm. We provide such conditions for front-to-front and front-to-end bidirectional search. The sufficient conditions are used to prove that the front-to-front bidirectional search algorithm BDS1 is optimally efficient, in terms of node expansion, among a broad class of bidirectional search algorithms, for a specific class of problem instances. Dechter and Pearl's well-known result on sufficient conditions for node expansion by unidirectional algorithms such as A* is shown to be a special case of our results.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations31
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and SchedulingSame topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207