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 OpenAlexaff
Ugur Kuter, Brian Kettler, Katherine Guo, Martin R. Hofmann, Valerie Champagne, Kurt Lachevet, Jennifer Lautenschlager, Robert P. Goldman, Luis Asencios, Josh Hamell

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.101
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

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicSystems Engineering Methodologies and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207