MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904805225 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33012288

On the Optimal Efficiency of Cost-Algebraic A*

2019· article· en· W2904805225 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert C. Holte, Sandra Zilles

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGame Theory and Voting Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsAlgebraic numberHeuristicMathematicsCost efficiencyMathematical optimizationComputer scienceAlgebra over a fieldMathematical economicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Edelkamp et al. (2005) proved that A*, given an admissible heuristic, is guaranteed to return an optimal solution in any cost algebra, not just in the traditional shortest path setting. In this paper, we investigate cost-algebraic A*’s optimal efficiency: in the cost-algebraic setting, under what conditions is A* guaranteed to expand the fewest possible states? In the traditional setting, this question was examined in detail by Dechter & Pearl (1985). They identified five different situations in which A* was optimally efficient. We show that three of them continue to hold in the cost-algebraic setting, but that one does not. We also show that one of them is false, it does not hold even in the traditional setting. We introduce an alternative that does hold in the cost-algebraic setting. Finally, we show that a well-known result due to Nilsson does not hold in the general cost-algebraic setting but does hold in a slightly less general setting.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicGame Theory and Voting SystemsFrench-language works237,207