Optimal Partial-Order Plan Relaxation via MaxSAT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partial-order plans (POPs) are attractive because of their least-commitment nature, which provides enhanced plan flexibility at execution time relative to sequential plans. Current research on automated plan generation focuses on producing sequential plans, despite the appeal of POPs. In this paper we examine POP generation by relaxing or modifying the action orderings of a sequential plan to optimize for plan criteria that promote flexibility. Our approach relies on a novel partial weighted MaxSAT encoding of a sequential plan that supports the minimization of deordering or reordering of actions. Using a similar technique, we further demonstrate how to remove redundant actions from the plan, and how to combine this criterion with the objective of maximizing a POP's flexibility. Our partial weighted MaxSAT encoding allows us to compute a POP from a sequential plan effectively. We compare the efficiency of our approach to previous methods for POP generation via sequential-plan relaxation. Our results show that while an existing heuristic approach consistently produces the optimal deordering of a sequential plan, our approach has greater flexibility when we consider reordering the actions in the plan while also providing a guarantee of optimality. We also investigate and confirm the accuracy of the standard flex metric typically used to predict the true flexibility of a POP as measured by the number of linearizations it represents.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".