MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399261742 · doi:10.1609/socs.v17i1.31553

Clique Analysis and Bypassing in Continuous-Time Conflict-Based Search

2024· article· en· W4399261742 on OpenAlexafffund
Thayne T. Walker, Nathan Sturtevant, Ariel Felner

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of DenverCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchUniversity of AlbertaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCliqueComputer scienceMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the study of unit-cost Multi-Agent Pathfinding (MAPF) problems has been popular, many real-world problems require continuous time and costs. In this context, this paper studies symmetry-breaking enhancements for Continuous-Time Conflict-Based Search (CCBS), a solver for continuous-time MAPF. Resolving conflict symmetries in MAPF can require an exponential amount of work. We adapt known symmetry-breaking enhancements from unit-cost domains for CCBS: bypassing and biclique constraints. We then improve upon these to produce a new state-of-the-art algorithm: CCBS with disjoint k-partite cliques (CCBS+DK). Finally, we show empirically that CCBS+DK solves for up to 20% more agents in the same amount of time when compared to previous state-of-the-art.

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)0.012
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 score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
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 science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial SearchSame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207