MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890521966 · doi:10.1145/3234944.3234976

Levenshtein in Blocks World

2018· article· en· W2890521966 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLevenshtein distanceHeuristicsComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Encoding (memory)Artificial intelligenceString (physics)String metricAutomated planning and schedulingPlan (archaeology)Domain (mathematical analysis)Similarity (geometry)Matching (statistics)State (computer science)Machine learningString searching algorithmTheoretical computer sciencePattern matchingAlgorithmMathematicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We provide in this paper an encoding which converts the string matching problems into planning problems in Artificial Intelligence. As an example use of the encoding, Levenshtein distance for measuring similarity between two strings particularly is to be calculated through searching for a feasible plan in shortest length from its initial state to the goal state. The research has its origin in Blocks World, a benchmark domain for studying the theory and application of AI planning. Connecting with AI planning in our belief not only creates promising opportunities in development of new, knowledge-rich heuristics, but also enables hands-on use of existing high-performance AI planners or reasoners, for string matching.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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