MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7052154673

Robustness of Real-Time Heuristic Search Algorithms to Read/Write Error in Externally Stored Heuristics

2017· article· en· W7052154673 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPlasma Diagnostics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIncremental heuristic searchHeuristicsBeam searchNull-move heuristicConsistent heuristicHeuristicRobustness (evolution)Redundancy (engineering)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real-time heuristic search algorithms follow the agent-centered search paradigm wherein the agent has access only to information local to the agent’s current position in the environment. This allows agents with constant-bounded computational faculties (e.g., memory) to take on search problems of progressively increasing sizes. As the agent’s memory does not scale with the size of the search problem, the heuristic must necessarily be stored externally, in the environment. Storing the heuristic in the environment brings the extra challenge of read/write errors. In video games, introducing error artificially to the heuristics can make the non-player characters (NPC) behave more naturally. In this paper, we evaluate effects of such errors on real-time heuristic search algorithms. In particular, we empirically study the effects of heuristic read redundancy on algorithm performance and compare its effects to the existing technique of using weights in heuristic learning. Finally, we evaluate a recently proposed technique of correcting the heuristic with a one-step error term in the presence of read/write error.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.091
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.091
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlasma Diagnostics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207