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
A great deal of research has addressed the problem of gen-erating optimal plans, but these plans are of limited use in circumstances where noisy sensors, unanticipated exogenous actions, or imperfect models result in discrepancies between predicted and observed states of the world during plan ex-ecution. Such discrepancies bring into question the contin-ued optimality of the plan being executed and, according to current-day practice, are resolved by aborting the plan and replanning, often unnecessarily. In this paper we address the problem of monitoring the continued optimality of a given plan at execution time, in the face of such discrepancies. While replanning cannot be avoided when critical aspects of the environment change, our objective is to avoid replanning unnecessarily. We address the problem by building on prac-tical approaches to monitoring plan validity. We begin by formalizing plan validity in the situation calculus and char-acterizing common approaches to monitoring plan validity. We then generalize this characterization to the notion of plan optimality and propose an algorithm that verifies continued plan optimality. We have implemented our algorithm and tested it on simulated execution failures in well-known plan-ning domains. Experimental results yield a significant speed-up in performance over the alternative of replanning, clearly demonstrating the merit of our approach. 1
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 | 0.000 | 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