MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965027281 · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2019/174

Iterative Budgeted Exponential Search

2019· preprint· en· W2965027281 on OpenAlexafffund
Malte Helmert, Tor Lattimore, Levi H. S. Lelis, Laurent Orseau, Nathan Sturtevant

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCompute CanadaUniversity of Denver
KeywordsIterative deepening depth-first searchSearch treeOmegaOverhead (engineering)Tree (set theory)HeuristicMathematical optimizationGraphExponential functionSearch algorithmComputer scienceUpper and lower boundsLimit (mathematics)MathematicsBranch and boundCombinatoricsAlgorithmDiscrete mathematicsBeam searchIncremental heuristic search

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We tackle two long-standing problems related to re-expansions in heuristic search algorithms. For graph search, A* can require Ω(2ⁿ) expansions, where n is the number of states within the final f bound. Existing algorithms that address this problem like B and B’ improve this bound to Ω(n²). For tree search, IDA* can also require Ω(n²) expansions. We describe a new algorithmic framework that iteratively controls an expansion budget and solution cost limit, giving rise to new graph and tree search algorithms for which the number of expansions is O(n log C*), where C* is the optimal solution cost. Our experiments show that the new algorithms are robust in scenarios where existing algorithms fail. In the case of tree search, our new algorithms have no overhead over IDA* in scenarios to which IDA* is well suited and can therefore be recommended as a general replacement for IDA*.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
GenreMethods

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