Diagnostic problem solving via planning with ontic and epistemic goals
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
Diagnostic problem solving involves a myriad of reasoning tasks associated with the determination of diagnoses, the generation and execution of tests to discriminate diagnoses, and the determination and execution of actions to alleviate symptoms and/or their root causes. Fundamental to diagnostic problem solving is the need to reason about action and change. In this work we explore these myriad of reasoning tasks through the lens of artificial intelligence (AI) automated planning. We characterize a diversity of reasoning tasks associated with diagnostic problem solving, prove properties of these characterizations, and define correspondences with established automated planning tasks and existing state-of-the-art planning systems. In doing so, we characterize a class of planning tasks with epistemic and ontic goals which we show can be compiled into non-epistemic planning, allowing state-of-the-art planners to compute plans for such tasks. Furthermore, we explore the effectiveness of using the conditional planner Contingent-FF with a number of diagnostic planning tasks.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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