MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W52101158 · doi:10.1609/socs.v2i1.18197

Repeated-Task Canadian Traveler Problem

2021· article· en· W52101158 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zahy Bnaya, Ariel Felner, Dror Fried, Olga Maksin, Solomon Eyal Shimony

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsDisjoint setsComputer scienceTask (project management)Mathematical optimizationFraction (chemistry)Path (computing)Tree traversalGraphMathematicsAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Canadian Traveler Problem (CTP) a traveling agent is given a weighted graph, where some of the edges may be blocked, with a known probability. The agent needs to travel to a given goal. A solution for CTP is a policy, that has the smallest expected traversal cost. CTP is intractable. Previous work has focused on the case of a single agent. We generalize CTP to a repeated task version where a number of agents need to travel to the same goal, minimizing their combined travel cost. We provide optimal algorithms for the special case of disjoint path graphs. Based on a previous UCT-based approach for the single agent case, a framework is developed for the multi-agent case and four variants are given - two of which are based on the results for disjoint-path graphs. Empirical results show the benefits of the suggested framework and the resulting heuristics. For small graphs where we could compare to optimal policies, our approach achieves near optimal results at only a fraction of the computation cost.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial SearchSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207