Computing Robust Plans in Continuous Domains
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We define the robustness of a sequential plan as the probability that it will execute successfully despite uncertainty in the execution environment. We consider a rich notion of uncertainty over continuous domains that includes stochastic action effects, and changes to state variables due to unpredictable exogenous events. Given a characterization of this uncertainty in terms of probability distributions (e.g., Gaussian) our contributions are two-fold: First, we describe a novel approach to computing the robustness of a plan in the situation calculus, which (a) separates the projection problem from the problem of reasoning about probability, and (b) explicitly reveals the relevance and statistical independence of random variables and events (i.e., conditions that contain random variables). Then, building on this approach, we describe a forward search based planner that generates maximally robust plans, exploiting the revealed structure for speed-up. Preliminary empirical results demonstrate that our approach can realize exponential savings in both time and space compared to the classical sampling approach.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it