MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382866786 · doi:10.1609/icaps.v33i1.27179

Planning for Temporally Extended Goals in Pure-Past Linear Temporal Logic

2023· article· en· W4382866786 on OpenAlexaff
Luigi Bonassi, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Marco Favorito, Francesco Fuggitti, Alfonso Gerevini, Enrico Scala

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework Programme
KeywordsPlannerLinear temporal logicTemporal logicComputer scienceLinear logicSpurious relationshipOverhead (engineering)CompilerTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study classical planning for temporally extended goals expressed in Pure-Past Linear Temporal Logic (PPLTL). PPLTL is as expressive as Linear-time Temporal Logic on finite traces (LTLf), but as shown in this paper, it is computationally much better behaved for planning. Specifically, we show that planning for PPLTL goals can be encoded into classical planning with minimal overhead, introducing only a number of new fluents that is at most linear in the PPLTL goal and no spurious additional actions. Based on these results, we implemented a system called Plan4Past, which can be used along with state-of-the-art classical planners, such as LAMA. An empirical analysis demonstrates the practical effectiveness of Plan4Past, showing that a classical planner generally performs better with our compilation than with other existing compilations for LTLf goals over the considered benchmarks.

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 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 score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and SchedulingSame topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207