MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2756655043 · doi:10.1609/icaps.v27i1.13807

Boosting Search Guidance in Problems with Semantic Attachments

2017· article· en· W2756655043 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

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsPlannerExploitComputer scienceHeuristicEstimatorBoosting (machine learning)Leverage (statistics)Theoretical computer scienceMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most applications of planning to real problems involve complex and often non-linear equations, including matrix operations. PDDL is ill-suited to express such calculations since it only allows basic operations between numeric fluents. To remedy this restriction, a generic PDDL planner can be connected to a specialised advisor, which equips the planner with the ability to carry out sophisticated mathematical operations. Unlike related techniques based on semantic attachment, our planner is able to exploit an approximation of the numeric information calculated by the advisor to compute informative heuristic estimators. Guided by both causal and numeric information, our planning framework outperforms traditional approaches, especially against problems with numeric goals. We provide evidence of the power of our solution by successfully solving four completely different problems.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.260 · 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