MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788438366 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.12082

Linear and Integer Programming-Based Heuristics for Cost-Optimal Numeric Planning

2018· article· en· W2788438366 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y TecnológicaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHeuristicsInteger programmingLinear programmingMathematical optimizationLinear programming relaxationComputer scienceHeuristicBranch and priceState (computer science)State variableRelaxation (psychology)MathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Linear programming has been successfully used to compute admissible heuristics for cost-optimal classical planning. Although one of the strengths of linear programming is the ability to express and reason about numeric variables and constraints, their use in numeric planning is limited. In this work, we extend linear programming-based heuristics for classical planning to support numeric state variables. In particular, we propose a model for the interval relaxation, coupled with landmarks and state equation constraints. We consider both linear programming models and their harder-to-solve, yet more informative, integer programming versions. Our experimental analysis shows that considering an NP-Hard heuristic often pays off and that A* search using our integer programming heuristics establishes a new state of the art in cost-optimal numeric planning.

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)0.001
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 score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.235 · 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