Search control in planning for temporally extended goals
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current techniques for reasoning about search control knowledge in AI planning, such as those used in TLPlan, TALPlanner, or SHOP2, assume that search control knowledge is conditioned upon and interpreted with respect to a fixed set of goal states. Therefore, these techniques can deal with reachability goals but do not apply to temporally extended goals, such as goals of achieving a condition whenever a certain fact becomes true. Temporally extended goals convey several intermediate reachability goals to be achieved at different point of execution, sometimes with cyclic executions; that is, the notion of goal state becomes dynamic. In this paper, we describe a method for reasoning about search control knowledge in the presence of temporally extended goals. Given such a goal, we generate an equivalent Büchi automaton— an automaton recognising the language of the executions satisfying the goal—and interpret control knowledge over this automaton and the world state trajectories generated by a forward search planner. This method is implemented and experimented with as an extension of the TLPlan planner, which incidentally becomes capable of handling cyclic goals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it