Computational Complexity of Computing Symmetries in Finite-Domain Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Symmetry-based pruning is a powerful method for reducing the search effort in finitedomain planning. This method is based on exploiting an automorphism group connected to the ground description of the planning task { these automorphisms are known as structural symmetries. In particular, we are interested in the StructSym problem where the generators of this group are to be computed. It has been observed in practice that the StructSym problem is surprisingly easy to solve. We explain this phenomenon by showing that StructSym is GI-complete, i.e., the graph isomorphism problem is polynomial-time equivalent to it and, consequently, solvable in quasi-polynomial time. This implies that it is solvable substantially faster than most computationally hard problems encountered in AI. We accompany this result by identifying natural restrictions of the planning task and its causal graph that ensure that StructSym can be solved in polynomial time. Given that the StructSym problem is GI-complete and thus solvable quite efficiently, it is interesting to analyse if other symmetries (than those that are encompassed by the StructSym problem) can be computed and/or analysed efficiently, too. To this end, we present a highly negative result: checking whether there exists an automorphism of the state transition graph that maps one state s into another state t is a PSPACE-hard problem and, consequently, at least as hard as the planning problem itself.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".