Monitoring the generation and execution of optimal plans
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
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. In 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. We
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 | 0.000 |
| 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