Computing Contingent Plans via Fully Observable Non-Deterministic Planning
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
Planning with sensing actions under partial observability is a computationally challenging problem that is fundamental to the realization of AI tasks in areas as diverse as robotics, game playing, and diagnostic problem solving. Recent work on generating plans for partially observable domains has advocated for online planning, claiming that offline plans are often too large to generate. Here we push the envelope on this challenging problem, proposing a technique for generating conditional (aka contingent) plans offline. The key to our planner's success is the reliance on state-of-the-art techniques for fully observable non-deterministic (FOND) planning. In particular, we use an existing compilation for converting a planning problem under partial observability and sensing to a FOND planning problem. With a modified FOND planner in hand, we are able to scale beyond previous techniques for generating conditional plans with solutions that are orders of magnitude smaller than previously possible in some domains.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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