arXiv:2609.17429v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Many learned sequential decision systems map the current state directly to an action. That shortcut becomes brittle when candidate actions are numerous, geometrically structured, and rebuilt with the state. One-to-many mobile charging makes this setting concrete: with N=250 sensors, the initial state induces about 1,125 candidate charging-stop actions; each chosen stop simultaneously serves its in-range sensors, and the action universe changes as sensors die. LP-BTS is a learning-guided planning architecture: a graph proposal policy concentrates a small candidate support, a learned value critic evaluates leaves, and edge-budgeted PUCT compares short simulated futures before committing an action. Because the policy scores this set without a fixed output head, a single frozen checkpoint covers every evaluated setting, spanning action universes from 736 to 2,813 stops. Matched ablations reveal complementary effects: uniform sampling costs 8.8 survival percentage points, while, with targeted support fixed, PUCT jointly retains 1.4 points (about 3.5 of 250 sensors) and direct policy selection travels 23% farther. On a prospectively specified, sealed 30-scenario confirmatory bank evaluated once, LP-BTS attains the highest observed survival (0.4545) and alive-AUC (0.8031). Its estimated survival advantage over the strongest domain-engineered comparator is +0.0066 (95% CI [-0.0037, +0.0184]), an unresolved difference, while it exceeds a deadline heuristic and two source-derived direct-policy reconstructions on every paired scenario. Both learned rows are trained, source-derived reconstructions of variants reported by Gong et al. In this setting, the results provide controlled evidence about learning-guided planning in a large, dynamic action space.
Abstract: Many learned sequential decision systems map the current state directly to an action. That shortcut becomes brittle when candidate actions are numerous, geometrically structured, and rebuilt with the state. One-to-many mobile charging makes this setting concrete: with N=250 sensors, the initial state induces about 1,125 candidate charging-stop actions; each chosen stop simultaneously serves its in-range sensors, and the action universe changes as sensors die. LP-BTS is a learning-guided planning architecture: a graph proposal policy concentrates a small candidate support, a learned value critic evaluates leaves, and edge-budgeted PUCT compares short simulated futures before committing an action. Because the policy scores this set without a fixed output head, a single frozen checkpoint covers every evaluated setting, spanning action universes from 736 to 2,813 stops. Matched ablations reveal complementary effects: uniform sampling costs 8.8 survival percentage points, while, with targeted support fixed, PUCT jointly retains 1.4 points (about 3.5 of 250 sensors) and direct policy selection travels 23% farther. On a prospectively specified, sealed 30-scenario confirmatory bank evaluated once, LP-BTS attains the highest observed survival (0.4545) and alive-AUC (0.8031). Its estimated survival advantage over the strongest domain-engineered comparator is +0.0066 (95% CI [-0.0037, +0.0184]), an unresolved difference, while it exceeds a deadline heuristic and two source-derived direct-policy reconstructions on every paired scenario. Both learned rows are trained, source-derived reconstructions of variants reported by Gong et al. In this setting, the results provide controlled evidence about learning-guided planning in a large, dynamic action space.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: