Problem, Research Strategy, and Findings: The rise of large language models (LLMs) raises a key question for urban planning: which forms of professional planning knowledge can AI replicate, and which still require human judgment? Although AI tools are increasingly used in planning practice, there is still no systematic framework for testing whether they can reason with the contextual sensitivity, value awareness, and institutional literacy central to planning expertise.
arXiv:2606. 03685v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) improves end-to-end classical planning in large language models (LLMs), but do these models also learn to represent and reason about the planning problems they are solving?
The article presents a minimal working model for large language model (LLM) systems, emphasizing four key distinctions—pretraining vs. deployment, distribution vs. samples, types of memory, and task competence vs. agency. Using this framework, it diagnoses six common misconceptions about LLMs (next‑token prediction, regression to the mean, training‑data regurgitation, model memory, alignment, and understanding), explaining what each misconception captures correctly, where it conflates distinctions, and the implications for evaluation, design, and governance. The model is applied to AI policy language, illustrating how policy can misrepresent these distinctions and offering a diagnostic toolkit to correct such errors.
PIE-APT introduces a unified framework for abductive planning over Temporal Dynamic Knowledge Graphs (TDKGs) using two modules: PIE-Abducer, which performs incremental direct-derivation abduction, and PIE-APT, which interleaves backward‑chaining A* search with PIE-Abducer to generate action sequences and abductive assumptions. The approach operates natively on the expressive SROIQ Description Logic, leveraging an incremental reasoner to maintain decidability and bypass the Ramification Problem. Evaluation on four OWL benchmarks demonstrates qualitative superiority over classical planners and shows that the direct‑derivation method outperforms a Minimal Hitting Set baseline in abductive enrichment.
arXiv:2606. 27757v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have attracted widespread attention from academia and industry, yet their deployment raises critical security concerns regarding robustness and reliability.
arXiv:2608. 16637v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs remain unreliable for long-horizon planning, often generating logically inconsistent or non-applicable plans.
PermitGPT is a generative‑AI framework that transforms unstructured construction permit descriptions into structured outputs for safety hazard identification, permit requirement specification, and community impact assessment. It aligns data from the NYC Department of Buildings, OSHA, and NYC 311 to create 90,000 prompt‑response pairs, fine‑tunes three open‑weight language models, and evaluates them on 2,833 test cases, reporting complementary performance across inference speed, lexical overlap, and semantic alignment. The study presents an initial AI‑assisted approach to construction governance and outlines future evaluation and validation directions.
arXiv:2606. 17459v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating the decision-making capabilities of large language models (LLMs) is a growing research priority, yet existing benchmarks focus on isolated cognitive tasks such as reasoning, knowledge retrieval, and economic rationality in stylized settings.
arXiv:2607. 23983v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Operational flood forecasting depends on tacit forecaster expertise that is difficult to formalize, audit, and transfer.
arXiv:2510. 05107v5 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The central challenge for AI agents is not only performance but accountability.
arXiv:2606. 27806v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Language agents plan by generating not only actions but also implicit predictions of how the world will change.
arXiv:2608. 09857v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Advances in advanced artificial intelligence tools have sparked research in robot autonomy, but the development of such systems has largely focused on execution rather than verifying the feasibility actions planning models propose.
When LLMs exhibit uneven performance across planning tasks, these gaps are often attributed to task difficulty. We argue that this explanation is incomplete, as task-level variation may reflect distinct latent planning competencies rather than differences along a single ability spectrum.