MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966085774 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33019504

Profiles, Proxies, and Assumptions: Decentralized, Communications-Resilient Planning, Allocation, and Scheduling

2019· article· en· W2966085774 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 AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSystems Engineering Methodologies and Applications
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
FundersAir Force Research Laboratory
KeywordsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)NegotiationScalabilityOperations researchScheduleSubject matterOperational planningDistributed computingArchitectureOperations managementEngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Degraded communications are expected in large-scale disaster response and military operations, which nevertheless require rapid, concerted actions by distributed decision makers, each with limited visibility into the changing situation and in charge of a limited set of resources. We describe LAPLATA, a novel architecture that addresses these challenges by separating mission planning from allocation/scheduling for scalability but at the cost of some negotiation. We describe formal algorithms that achieve near-optimal performance according to mission completion percentage and subject matter expert review: assumption-based planning and replanning, profileassisted cooperative allocation, and schedule negotiation. We validate our approach on a realistic problem specification and compare results against subject matter expert solutions.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.214 · 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