MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1567723160 · doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-606-5-217

Planning with Concurrency under Resources and Time Uncertainty

2010· book-chapter· en· W1567723160 on OpenAlexaff
Froduald Kabanza

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcurrencyComputer scienceDistributed computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Planning with actions concurrency under resources and time uncertainty has been recognized as a challenging and interesting problem. Most current approaches rely on a discrete model to represent resources and time, which contributes to the combinatorial explosion of the search space when dealing with both actions concurrency and resources and time uncertainty. A recent alternative approach uses continuous random variables to represent the uncertainty on time, thus avoiding the state-space explosion caused by the discretization of timestamps. We generalize this approach to consider uncertainty on both resources and time. Our planner is based on a forward chaining search in a state-space where the state representation is characterized by a set of object and numeric state variables. Object state variables are associated with random variables tracking the time at which the state variables' current value has been assigned. The search algorithm dynamically generates a Bayesian network that models the dependency between time and numeric random variables. The planning algorithm queries the Bayesian network to estimate the probability that the resources (numerical state variables) remain in a valid state, the probability of success and the expected cost of the generated plans. Experiments were performed on a transport domain in which we introduced uncertainty on the duration of actions and on the fuel consumption of trucks.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations12
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applicationsSame topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207