Situation Calculus Temporally Lifted Abstractions for Generalized Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a new formal framework for generalized planning (GP) based on the situation calculus extended with LTL constraints. The GP problem is specified by a first-order basic action theory whose models are the problem instances. This low-level theory is then abstracted into a high-level propositional nondeterministic basic action theory with a single model. A refinement mapping relates the two theories. LTL formulas are used to specify the temporally extended goals as well as assumed trace constraints. If all LTL trace constraints hold at the low level and the high-level model can simulate all the low-level models with respect to the mapping, we say that we have a temporally lifted abstraction. We prove that if we have such an abstraction and the agent has a strategy to achieve a LTL goal under some trace constraints at the abstract level, then there exists a refinement of the strategy to achieve the refinement of the goal at the concrete level. We use LTL synthesis to generate the strategy at the abstract level. We illustrate our approach by synthesizing a program that solves a data structure manipulation problem.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".