MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385439150 · doi:10.24963/kr.2023/76

Planning with Epistemic Preferences

2023· article· en· W4385439150 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversitySchwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine InstituteVector InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersOpen Philanthropy ProjectNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchMicrosoft Research
KeywordsPlan (archaeology)Task (project management)Computer scienceField (mathematics)Management scienceEpistemologyKnowledge managementArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMathematicsPhilosophySystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within the field of automated planning, two areas of study are planning with preferences and epistemic planning. Planning with preferences involves generating plans that optimize for properties of the plan instead of, or in addition to, trying to reach a fixed goal. Epistemic planning allows for planning over the knowledge or belief states of one or more agents for the purpose of achieving epistemic goals (where agents have particular states of knowledge or belief). In this paper we motivate and explore the task of planning with epistemic preferences, proposing a method by which existing automated planning techniques can be combined for this purpose.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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