From FOND to Robust Probabilistic Planning: Computing Compact Policies that Bypass Avoidable Deadends
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 address the class of probabilistic planning problems where the objective is to maximize the probability of reaching a prescribed goal. The complexity of probabilistic planning problems makes it difficult to compute high quality solutions for large instances, and existing algorithms either do not scale, or do so at the expense of the solution quality. We leverage core similarities between probabilistic and fully observable non-deterministic (FOND) planning to construct a sound, offline probabilistic planner, ProbPRP, that exploits algorithmic advances from state-of-the-art FOND planner, PRP, to compute compact policies that are guaranteed to bypass avoidable deadends. We evaluate ProbPRP on a selection of benchmarks used in past probabilistic planning competitions. The results show that ProbPRP, in many cases, outperforms the state of the art, computing substantially more robust policies and at times doing so orders of magnitude faster.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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