MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966782683 · doi:10.1609/icaps.v29i1.3496

Lagrangian Decomposition for Optimal Cost Partitioning

2021· article· en· W2966782683 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsLagrangian relaxationMathematical optimizationHeuristicsSolverComputationComputer scienceContext (archaeology)HeuristicLagrange multiplierDecompositionMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimal cost partitioning of classical planning heuristics has been shown to lead to excellent heuristic values but is often prohibitively expensive to compute. Lagrangian decomposition and Lagrangian relaxation are classical tools in mathematical programming that apply to optimization problems with a special block structure. We analyze the application of Lagrangian decomposition to cost partitioning in the context of operator-counting heuristics and interpret Lagrangian multipliers as cost functions for the combined heuristics. This allows us to view the computation of an optimal cost partitioning as an iterative process that can be seeded with any cost partitioning and improves over time. We derive an anytime algorithm to compute an optimal non-negative cost partitioning of abstraction heuristics without involving an LP solver. In each iteration, the computation reduces to independent shortest path problems in all abstractions. Finally, we discuss the extension to general cost functions.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.277 · 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