Issue116

Title LM cut works poorly with very high action costs
Priority urgent Status resolved
Superseder Nosy List erez, malte
Assigned To malte Keywords 1.0
Optional summary

Created on 2010-08-26.14:42:37 by malte, last changed by malte.

Messages
msg1203 (view) Author: malte Date: 2011-01-20.02:38:57
Done and merged. Actually, there were no further improvements -- I did some code
cleanup, but it had negligible impact on speed. (It may actually be slightly --
very slightly -- negative, but there were good reasons for it.)

While working on the heuristic, I've also removed the iteration_limit option
which was unused and did not make much sense for the cost-based setting since it
was not cost-based.
msg1080 (view) Author: malte Date: 2011-01-06.04:18:13
OK, should be much better now. This is not thoroughly tested; performance in
unit-cost domains might drop a bit. But initial tests at least don't suggest
that this would be the case.

I'm not done yet, as further improvements are possible, but I've already pushed
what I have so far and merged it into default, without closing issue116 (since
I'll work further on this later).
msg1075 (view) Author: malte Date: 2011-01-06.02:30:08
See also issue173.
msg475 (view) Author: malte Date: 2010-08-26.14:42:37
The queue used for h_max computation in LM-cut is bucket-based and hence works
very poorly with high action costs as in ParcPrinter.
History
Date User Action Args
2011-01-20 02:38:58maltesetstatus: in-progress -> resolved
messages: + msg1203
2011-01-06 04:18:13maltesetstatus: chatting -> in-progress
messages: + msg1080
2011-01-06 02:30:08maltesetpriority: bug -> urgent
nosy: + erez
messages: + msg1075
2010-10-15 19:04:54maltesetassignedto: malte
2010-10-15 18:14:19maltesetkeyword: + 1.0
2010-08-26 14:42:37maltecreate