Monitoring the execution of partial-order plans via regression
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
Partial-order plans (POPs) have the capacity to compactly represent numerous distinct plan linearizations and as a consequence are inherently robust. We exploit this robustness to do effective execution monitoring. We characterize the conditions under which a POP remains viable as the regression of the goal through the structure of a POP. We then develop a method for POP execution monitoring via a structured policy, expressed as an ordered algebraic decision diagram. The policy encompasses both state evaluation and action selection, enabling an agent to seamlessly switch between POP linearizations to accommodate unexpected changes during execution. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach by comparing it empirically and analytically to a standard technique for execution monitoring of sequential plans. On standard benchmark planning domains, our approach is 2 to 17 times faster and up to 2.5 times more robust than comparable monitoring of a sequential plan. On POPs that have few ordering constraints among actions, our approach is significantly more robust, with the ability to continue executing in up to an exponential number of additional states. 1
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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