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 OpenAlexaff
Sara Bernardini, Maria Fox, Derek Long, Chiara Piacentini

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and SchedulingSame topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207