MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232581922 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14647755.v1

Efficient Lifted Planning with Regression-Based Heuristics

2021· preprint· en· W4232581922 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

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsPlannerBenchmark (surveying)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)Automated planning and schedulingHeuristicTask (project management)Operator (biology)Artificial intelligenceRegressionMachine learningOperations researchMathematical optimizationMathematicsEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern state-of-the-art planners operate by generating a grounded transition system prior to performing search for a solution to a given planning task. Some tasks involve a significant number of objects or entail managing predicates and action schemas with a significant number of arguments. Hence, this instantiation procedure can exhaust all available memory and therefore prevent a planner from performing search to find a solution. This thesis explores this limitation by presenting a benchmark set of problems based on Organic Chemistry Synthesis that was submitted to the latest International Planning Competition (IPC-2018). This benchmark was constructed to gauge the performance of the competing planners given that instantiation is an issue. Furthermore, a novel algorithm, the Regression-Based Heuristic Planner (RBHP), is developed with the aim of averting this issue. RBHP was inspired by the retro-synthetic approach commonly used to solve organic synthesis problems efficiently. RBHP solves planning tasks by applying domain independent heuristics, computed by regression, and performing best-first search. In contrast to most modern planners, RBHP computes heuristics backwards by applying the goal-directed regression operator. However, the best-first search proceeds forward similar to other planners. The proposed planner is evaluated on a set of planning tasks included in previous International Planning Competitions (IPC) against a subset of the top scoring state-of-the-art planners submitted to the IPC-2018.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207