MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410907218 · doi:10.21428/d82e957c.be853a08

Adaptformer: Sequence Models as Adaptive Iterative Planners

2025· article· en· W4410907218 on OpenAlexafffund
A.R. Karthikeyan, Yash Vardhan Pant

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSequence (biology)Computer scienceBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite recent advances in sequence models for autonomous systems, adapting to harder, unseen tasks at test time while leveraging only demonstrations from simpler tasks remains a significant challenge. This limitation is particularly critical in planning and decision-making, where agents must utilize previously observed data to generate informed actions for novel scenarios, rather than resorting to random behavior. Conventional behavioral cloning techniques often fail in these contexts, as they rely heavily on well-represented demonstrations (labeled data) and struggle with coherent generation of long-horizon plans. To address these challenges, we propose Adaptformer, a stochastic and adaptive planner that leverages energy-based sequence models to enable sample-efficient exploration and exploitation. Adaptformer learns an energy landscape to optimize trajectories and adapts effectively to novel test cases. Additionally, it employs an intrinsic goal proposal module to generate achievable shorter sub-goals, enabling consistent and long-horizon action sequence generation. This modular design also facilitates reasoning about the planner’s behavior. Empirical evaluations in procedurally generated maze environments demonstrate Adaptformer’s effectiveness, achieving up to a 25% improvement over state-of-the-art methods in long-horizon adaptation tasks where existing models fail.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207