MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1621585639 · doi:10.1613/jair.740

Partial-Order Planning with Concurrent Interacting Actions

2001· article· en· W1621585639 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsPlannerComputer scienceOrder (exchange)Plan (archaeology)Representation (politics)Task (project management)Action (physics)Simple (philosophy)Control (management)Distributed computingArtificial intelligenceEngineeringSystems engineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to generate plans for agents with multiple actuators, agent teams, or distributed controllers, we must be able to represent and plan using concurrent actions with interacting effects. This has historically been considered a challenging task requiring a temporal planner with the ability to reason explicitly about time. We show that with simple modifications, the STRIPS action representation language can be used to represent interacting actions. Moreover, algorithms for partial-order planning require only small modifications in order to be applied in such multiagent domains. We demonstrate this fact by developing a sound and complete partial-order planner for planning with concurrent interacting actions, POMP, that extends existing partial-order planners in a straightforward way. These results open the way to the use of partial-order planners for the centralized control of cooperative multiagent systems.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.329
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.144 · 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