The LM-Cut Heuristic Family for Optimal Numeric Planning with Simple Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The LM-cut heuristic, both alone and as part of the operator counting framework, represents one of the most successful heuristics for classical planning. In this paper, we generalize LM-cut and its use in operator counting to optimal numeric planning with simple conditions and simple numeric effects, i.e., linear expressions over numeric state variables and actions that increase or decrease such variables by constant quantities. We introduce a variant of hmaxhbd (a previously proposed numeric hmax heuristic) based on the delete-relaxed version of such planning tasks and show that, although inadmissible by itself, our variant yields a numeric version of the classical LM-cut heuristic which is admissible. We classify the three existing families of heuristics for this class of numeric planning tasks and introduce the LM-cut family, proving dominance or incomparability between all pairs of existing max and LM-cut heuristics for numeric planning with simple conditions. Our extensive empirical evaluation shows that the new LM-cut heuristic, both on its own and as part of the operator counting framework, is the state-of-the-art for this class of numeric planning problem.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".