MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285601267 · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2022/660

Efficient Budgeted Graph Search

2022· article· en· W4285601267 on OpenAlexaff
Jasmeet Kaur, Nathan Sturtevant

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIterative deepening depth-first searchHeuristicsSearch treeMathematical optimizationGraphComputer scienceSearch algorithmBest-first searchRange (aeronautics)Beam searchTree (set theory)Incremental heuristic searchLimit (mathematics)Local search (optimization)Search problemIterative methodMathematicsAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Iterative Budgeted Exponential Search (IBEX) is a general search algorithm that can limit the number of re-expansions performed in common problems like iterative-deepening tree search and search with inconsistent heuristics. IBEX has been adapted into a specific tree algorithm, Budgeted Tree Search (BTS), which behaves like IDA* when the problem instance is well-behaved but keeps the worst-case guarantees when problems are not well-behaved. The analogous algorithms on graphs, Budgeted Graph Search (BGS), do not have these same properties. This paper reformulates BGS into Efficient Budgeted Graph Search (BGSe), showing how to implement the algorithm so that it behaves identically to A* when problems are well-behaved, and retains the best-case performance otherwise. Experimental results validate the performance of BGSe on a range of theoretical and practical problem instances.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207