MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121729191 · doi:10.1609/socs.v4i1.18293

Automatic Generation of Efficient Domain-Optimized Planners from Generic Parametrized Planners

2021· article· en· W2121729191 on OpenAlexaff
Mauro Vallati, Chris Fawcett, Alfonso Gerevini, Holger H. Hoos, Alessandro Saetti

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlannerBenchmark (surveying)Computer scienceDomain (mathematical analysis)HeuristicsParameterized complexityContext (archaeology)Set (abstract data type)Range (aeronautics)PreprocessorHeuristicWork (physics)Automated planning and schedulingMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When designing state-of-the-art, domain-independent planning systems, many decisions have to be made with respect to the domain analysis or compilation performed during preprocessing, the heuristic functions used during search, and other features of the search algorithm. These design decisions can have a large impact on the performance of the resulting planner. By providing many alternatives for these choices and exposing them as parameters, planning systems can in principle be configured to work well on different domains. However, planners are typically used in default configurations that have been chosen because of their good average performance over a set of benchmark domains, with limited experimentation over the potentially huge range of possible configurations. In this work, we propose a general framework for automatically configuring a parameterized planner, and show that substantial performance gains can be achieved. We apply the framework to the well-known LPG planner, which in the context of this work was expanded to 62 parameters and over 6.5 x 10^17 possible configurations. By using this highly parameterized planning system in combination with the state-of-the-art automatic algorithm configuration procedure ParamILS, excellent performance on a broad range of well-known benchmark domains was achieved, as also witnessed by the results of the learning track of the 7th International Planning Competition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial SearchSame topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207