Bi-Criteria Diverse Plan Selection via Beam Search Approximation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work on diverse planning has focused on a two-step setting where the first step consists of generating a large number of plans, and the second step consists of selecting a subset of plans that maximizes diversity. For the second step, previous work has focused on solving a combinatorial optimization problem for diverse subset selection that can be approximated using greedy search. In this work, we propose a flexible, bi-criteria framework for diverse plan selection. Our framework consists of optimizing both quality and diversity, generalizing previous work and providing flexibility to prioritize one objective over the other. We consider two quality and two diversity measures and show that greedy search guarantees an approximation with a constant ratio for certain configurations based on established results in the literature. To allow users to trade off additional computation for better solutions, we introduce a beam search approximation that generalizes the greedy search, and we provide approximation guarantees on the obtained solutions. Finally, we conduct extensive experiments that show that: (1) our flexible bi-criteria framework allows us to obtain solutions of better quality while still maintaining a high degree of diversity; (2) our beam search approximation obtains significant improvement in performance over greedy search and, for a large number of instances, is able to generate solutions that are equal to or better than those obtained by an exact MIP solver with a significantly higher runtime limit.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it