MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964981248 · doi:10.1609/icaps.v29i1.3462

Relaxed BDDs: An Admissible Heuristic for Delete-Free Planning Based on a Discrete Relaxation

2021· article· en· W2964981248 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 International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y TecnológicaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHeuristicsBinary decision diagramHeuristicComputer scienceTask (project management)Relaxation (psychology)AlgorithmState (computer science)ComputationTheoretical computer scienceBinary numberMathematical optimizationMathematicsArtificial intelligenceArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the use of relaxed binary decision diagrams (BDDs) as an alternative to linear programming (LP) for computing an admissible heuristic for the cost-optimal delete-free planning (DFP) problem. Our main contributions are the introduction of a novel BDD encoding, a construction algorithm for the sequential relaxation of a DFP task and a study of the effectiveness of relaxed BDD heuristics, both from a theoretical and practical perspective. We further show that relaxed BDDs can be used beyond heuristic computation to extract delete-free plans, find action landmarks, and identify redundant actions. Our empirical analysis shows that while BDD-based heuristics trail the state of the art, even small relaxed BDDs are competitive with the LP heuristic for the DFP task.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.307
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