MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W131788687 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v25i1.8039

A Local Monte Carlo Tree Search Approach in Deterministic Planning

2011· article· en· W131788687 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo tree searchSatisficingPlannerComputer scienceMonte Carlo methodRandom walkMathematical optimizationScalingTree (set theory)Quality (philosophy)Plan (archaeology)MathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much recent work in satisficing planning has aimed at striking a balance between coverage - solving as many problems as possible - and plan quality. Current planners achieve near perfect coverage on the latest IPC benchmarks. It is therefore natural to investigate their scaling behavior on more difficult instances. Among state of the art planners, LAMA (Richter, Helmert, and Westphal 2008) is able to generate high quality plans, but its coverage drops off rapidly with increasing prob- lem complexity. The Arvand planner (Nakhost and Müller 2009) scales to much harder instances but generates lower quality plans. This paper introduces a new algorithm, Monte Carlo Random Walk-based Local Tree Search (MRW-LTS), which uses random walks to selectively build local search trees. Experiments demonstrate that MRW-LTS combines a scaling behavior that is better than LAMA’s with a plan quality that is better than Arvand’s.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.133 · 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