Assumption-Based Planning: Generating Plans and Explanations under Incomplete Knowledge
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
Many practical planning problems necessitate the generation of a plan under incomplete information about the state of the world. In this paper we propose the notion of Assumption-Based Planning. Unlike conformant planning, which attempts to find a plan under all possible completions of the initial state, an assumption-based plan supports the assertion of additional assumptions about the state of the world, often resulting in high quality plans where no conformant plan exists. We are interested in this paradigm of planning for two reasons: 1) it captures a compelling form of \emph{commonsense planning}, and 2) it is of great utility in the generation of explanations, diagnoses, and counter-examples -- tasks which share a computational core with We formalize the notion of assumption-based planning, establishing a relationship between assumption-based and conformant planning, and prove properties of such plans. We further provide for the scenario where some assumptions are more preferred than others. Exploiting the correspondence with conformant planning, we propose a means of computing assumption-based plans via a translation to classical planning. Our translation is an extension of the popular approach proposed by Palacios and Geffner and realized in their T0 planner. We have implemented our planner, A0, as a variant of T0 and tested it on a number of expository domains drawn from the International Planning Competition. Our results illustrate the utility of this new planning paradigm.
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 | 0.001 | 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