LM-cut and Operator Counting Heuristics for Optimal Numeric Planning with Simple Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider optimal numeric planning with numeric conditions consisting of linear expressions of numeric state variables and actions that increase or decrease numeric state variables by constant quantities. We build on previous research to introduce a new variant of the numeric hmax heuristic based on the delete-relaxed version of such planning tasks. Although our hmax heuristic is inadmissible, it yields a numeric version of the classical LM-cut heuristic which is admissible. Further, we prove that our LM-cut heuristic neither dominates nor is dominated by the existing numeric heuristic hmax(hbd). We show that admissibility also holds when integrating the numeric cuts into the operator-counting (OC) heuristic producing an admissible numeric version of the OC heuristic. Through experiments, we demonstrate that both these heuristics compete favorably with the state-of-the-art heuristics: in particular, while sometimes expanding more nodes than other heuristics, numeric OC solves 19 more problem instances than the next closest heuristic.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".