The paper evaluates how well open-weight large language models can repair Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL) models using only LLMs. Experiments show that while the best LLM achieves an F1 score of 0.87—an improvement of 0.38 over a symbolic baseline—it still fails to reliably satisfy test constraints, with a mean test pass rate of only 0.82 and as low as 0.06 on the Thoughtful domain. The study concludes that current open-weight models cannot guarantee the necessary test constraint satisfaction for dependable automated model repair.
By Nader Karimi Bavandpour, Pascal Bercher
arXiv:2606. 29700v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Planning often requires symbolic specifications that are both executable and verifiable.
By Jiamei Jiang, Jiajing Zhang, Feifei Mo, Linjing Li, Daniel Zeng
The paper evaluates how well current Large Language Models can translate natural language goals, written by video game testers, into well‑formed PDDL targets for classical planning. Using a carefully designed prompt template, six state‑of‑the‑art LLMs were tested on correctness, speed, and error tendencies with real‑world benchmarks. All models achieved high correctness (>92%), with Gemini 2.5 Flash reaching 96% accuracy and the fewest false positives, while GPT‑4.1 was the fastest, yet differences in performance and occasional failures due to ambiguity and domain limits remain.
By Tomas Balyo, Lukas Chrpa, G. Michael Youngblood
arXiv:2511. 14967v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have shown great promise in generating structured diagrams from natural language descriptions, particularly Mermaid sequence diagrams for software engineering.
By Basel Shbita, Farhan Ahmed, Chad DeLuca
NL2AGBench is a benchmark that evaluates how well large language models can translate English geometry problems into the formal language required by AlphaGeometry’s theorem‑proving engine. The study tests ten state‑of‑the‑art LLMs, comparing executable translation accuracy, syntactic correctness, and error types, and finds a large gap between closed‑source and open‑source models. The authors also propose an error taxonomy and test mitigation strategies such as few‑shot prompting, fine‑tuning, and human‑guided hinting, which improve performance across model families.
By Samuel Xiao, Judy Song, Rory Hu, Ziliang Zong
arXiv:2608. 16637v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs remain unreliable for long-horizon planning, often generating logically inconsistent or non-applicable plans.
By Veit Laule, Jiangtao Shuai, Manfred Hauswirth, Sonja Schimmler