Generating Fast Domain-Specific Planners by Automatically Configuring a Generic Parameterised Planner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When designing state-of-the-art, domain-independent planning systems, many decisions have to be made with respect to the domain analysis or compilation performed during preprocessing, the heuristic functions used during search, and other \nfeatures of the search algorithm. These design decisions can have a large impact on the performance of the resulting planner. By providing many alternatives for these choices and exposing them as parameters, planning systems can in principle be configured to work well on different domains. However, usually planners are used in default configurations that have been chosen because of their good average performance over a set of benchmark domains, with limited experimentation of the potentially huge range of possible configurations. \nIn this work, we propose a general framework for automatically configuring a parameterised planner, showing that substantial performance gains can be achieved. We apply the framework to the well-known LPG planner, which has 62 parameters and over 6.5 × 10^17 possible configurations. We demonstrate that by using this highly parameterised planning system in combination with the off-the-shelf, state-of-the-art automatic algorithm configuration procedure ParamILS, substantial performance improvements on specific planning domains can be obtained.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".