UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA A Theoretical Evaluation of Selected Backtracking Algorithms BY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, numerous new backtracking algorithms have been proposed. The algorithms are usually evaluated by empirical testing. This method, however, has its limitations. Our thesis adopts a different, purely theoretical approach, which is based on characterizations of the sets of search tree nodes visited by the backtracking algorithms. A new notion of inconsistency between instantiations and variables is introduced, a useful tool for describing such well-known concepts as backtrack, backjump, and domain annihilation. The characterizations enable us to: (a) prove the correctness of the algorithms, and (b) partially order the algorithms according to two standard performance measures: the number of visited nodes, and the number of performed consistency checks. Among other results, we prove, for the first time, the correctness of Backjumping and Conflict-Directed Backjumping, and show that Forward Checking never visits more nodes than Backjumping. Our approach leads us also to propose a modification to two hybrid backtracking algorithms, Backmarking with Backjumping (BMJ) and Backmarking with Conflict-Directed Backjumping (BM-CBJ), so that they always perform less consistency checks than the original algorithms.
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 | 0.009 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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.
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".