Instance-Specific Remodelling of Planning Domains by Adding Macros and Removing Operators
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
We propose an approach to remodelling classical planning domains via the addition of macro operators and removal of original operators either for the domain as a whole or instance-by-instance. For the latter remodelling, we train a predictor to choose the best reformulation of the domain based on instance characteristic. In the domain level remodelling, we try find a fixed remodelling that works best on average over our training set. Operator removal does not generally preserve solubility and proving solubility preservation of domain models is PSPACE-complete. So we use an approach that uses training instances to empirically estimate the probability of solubility preservation and maintains a minimum value of that probability on the training instances. We show that the instance-specific approach outperforms the traditional best-on-average macro-only remodelling approach in 9 out of 14 cases of domain/macro-source combinations, and that it can outperform fixed domain-based models generated with existing macro learning tools.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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