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
In this paper, we address the problem of generating preferred plans by combining the procedural control knowledge specified by Hierarchical Task Networks (HTNs) with rich qualitative user preferences. The outcome of our work is a language for specifyin user preferences, tailored to HTN planning, together with a provably optimal preference-based planner, HTNPLAN, that is implemented as an extension of SHOP2. To compute preferred plans, we propose an approach based on forward-chaining heuristic search. Our heuristic uses an admissible evaluation function measuring the satisfaction of preferences over partial plans. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates the effectiveness of our HTNPLAN heuristics. We prove our approach sound and optimal with respect to the plans it generates by appealing to a situation calculus semantics of our preference language and of HTN planning. While our implementation builds on SHOP2, the language and techniques proposed here are relevant to a broad range of HTN planners.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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