Bibliographic record
Abstract
In dynamic domains, the state of the world may change in unexpected ways during the generation or execution of plans. Regardless of the cause of such changes, they raise the question of whether they interfere with ongoing planning efforts. Unexpected changes during plan generation may invalidate the current planning effort, while discrepancies between expected and actual state of the world during execution may render the executing plan invalid or sub-optimal, with respect to previously identified planning objectives. \n \nIn this thesis we develop a general monitoring technique that can be used during both plan generation and plan execution to determine the relevance of unexpected changes and which supports recovery. This way, time intensive replanning from scratch in the new and unexpected state can often be avoided. The technique can be applied to a variety of objectives, including monitoring the optimality of plans, rather then just their validity. Intuitively, the technique operates in two steps: during planning the plan is annotated with additional information that is relevant to the achievement of the objective; then, when an unexpected change occurs, this information is used to determine the relevance of the discrepancy with respect to the objective. \n \nWe substantiate the claim of broad applicability of this relevance-based technique by developing four concrete applications: generating optimal plans despite frequent, unexpected changes to the initial state of the world, monitoring plan optimality during execution, monitoring the execution of near-optimal policies in stochastic domains, and monitoring the generation and execution of plans with procedural hard constraints. In all cases, we use the formal notion of regression to identify what is relevant for achieving the objective. We prove the soundness of these concrete approaches and present empirical results demonstrating that in some contexts orders of magnitude speed-ups can be gained by our technique compared to replanning from scratch.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".