Improved Features for Runtime Prediction of Domain-Independent Planners
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
State-of-the-art planners often exhibit substantial runtime variation, making it useful to be able to efficiently predict how long a given planner will take to run on a given instance. In other areas of AI, such needs are met by building so-called empirical performance models (EPMs), statistical models derived from sets of problem instances and performance observations. Historically, such models have been less accurate for predicting the running times of planners. A key hurdle has been a relative weakness in instance features for characterizing instances: mappings from problem instances to real numbers that serve as the starting point for learning an EPM. We propose a new, extensive set of instance features for planning, and investigate its effectiveness across a range of model families. We built EPMs for various prominent planning systems on several thousand benchmark problems from the planning literature and from IPC benchmark sets, and conclude that our models predict runtime much more accurately than the previous state of the art. We also study the relative importance of these features.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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