MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740426680 · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2017/68

An Admissible HTN Planning Heuristic

2017· article· en· W2740426680 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsHeuristicsHeuristicComputer scienceTask (project management)Rotation formalisms in three dimensionsAutomated planning and schedulingDecompositionHierarchyPlan (archaeology)Artificial intelligenceGraphMachine learningTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hierarchical task network (HTN) planning is well-known for being an efficient planning approach. This is mainly due to the success of the HTN planning system SHOP2. However, its performance depends on hand-designed search control knowledge. At the time being, there are only very few domain-independent heuristics, which are designed for differing hierarchical planning formalisms. Here, we propose an admissible heuristic for standard HTN planning, which allows to find optimal solutions heuristically. It bases upon the so-called task decomposition graph (TDG), a data structure reflecting reachable parts of the task hierarchy. We show (both in theory and empirically) that rebuilding it during planning can improve heuristic accuracy thereby decreasing the explored search space. The evaluation further studies the heuristic both in terms of plan quality and coverage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207