Planning Modulo Theories: Extending the Planning Paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerable effort has been spent extending the scope of planning beyond propositional domains to include, for example, time and numbers. Each extension has been designed as a separate specific semantic enrichment of the underlying planning model, with its own syntax and customised integration into a planning algorithm. Inspired by work on SAT Modulo Theories (SMT) in the SAT community, we develop a modelling language and planner that treat arbitrary first order theories as parameters. We call the approach Planning Modulo Theories (PMT). We introduce a modular language to represent PMT problems and demonstrate its benefits over PDDL in expressivity and compactness. We present a generalisation of the $h_{max}$ heuristic that allows our planner, PMTPlan, to automatically reason about arbitrary theories added as modules. Over several new and existing benchmarks, exploiting different theories, we show that PMTPlan can significantly out-perform an existing planner using PDDL models.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".