MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1857953989 · doi:10.1609/aimag.v29i4.2204

Planning with Preferences

2008· article· en· W1857953989 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAI Magazine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomated planning and schedulingComputer scienceTask (project management)Quality (philosophy)Set (abstract data type)PreferenceState (computer science)Representation (politics)Artificial intelligenceOperations researchHuman–computer interactionManagement scienceEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automated planning is a branch of AI that addresses the problem of generating a set of actions to achieve a specified goal state, given an initial state of the world. It is an active area of research that is central to the development of intelligent agents and autonomous robots. In many real‐world applications, a multitude of valid plans exist, and a user distinguishes plans of high quality by how well they adhere to the user's preferences. To generate such high‐quality plans automatically, a planning system must provide a means of specifying the user's preferences with respect to the planning task, as well as a means of generating plans that ideally optimize these preferences. In the last few years, there has been significant research in the area of planning with preferences. In this article we review current approaches to preference representation for planning as well as overviewing and contrasting the various approaches to generating preferred plans that have been developed to date.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.213 · 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