Bibliographic record
Abstract
Satisficing heuristic search such as greedy best-first search (GBFS) suffers from local minima, regions where heuristic values are inaccurate and a good node has a worse heuristic value than other nodes. Search algorithms that incorporate exploration mechanisms in GBFS empirically reduce the search effort to solve difficult problems. Although some of these methods entirely ignore the guidance of a heuristic during their exploration phase, intuitively, a good heuristic should have some bound on its inaccuracy, and exploration mechanisms should exploit this bound. In this paper, we theoretically analyze what a good node is for satisficing heuristic search algorithms and show that the heuristic value of a good node has an upper bound if a heuristic satisfies a certain property. Then, we propose biased exploration mechanisms which select lower heuristic values with higher probabilities. In the experiments using synthetic graph search problems and classical planning benchmarks, we show that the biased exploration mechanisms can be useful. In particular, one of our methods, Softmin-Type(h), significantly outperforms other GBFS variants in classical planning and improves the performance of Type-LAMA, a state-of-the-art classical planner.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".