MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382866757 · doi:10.1609/icaps.v33i1.27218

Symmetry Detection and Breaking in Linear Cost-Optimal Numeric Planning

2023· article· en· W4382866757 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaIsrael Academy of Sciences and Humanities
KeywordsSatisficingPruningSymmetry (geometry)Symmetry breakingHeuristicHomogeneous spaceMathematicsSymmetry groupRotational symmetryMathematical optimizationComputer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligencePhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main challenges of domain-independent numeric planning is the complexity of the search problem. The exploitation of structural symmetries in a search problem can constitute an effective method of pruning search branches that may lead to exponential improvements in performance. For over a decade, symmetry breaking techniques have been successfully used within both optimal and satisficing classical planning. In this work, we show that symmetry detection methods applied in classical planning with some effort can be modified to detect symmetries in linear numeric planning. The detected symmetry group, thereafter, can be used almost directly in the A*-based symmetry breaking algorithms such as DKS and Orbit Space Search. We empirically validate that symmetry pruning can yield a substantial reduction in the search effort, even if algorithms are equipped with a strong heuristic, such as LM-cut.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.260 · 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