arXiv AI By Nader Karimi Bavandpour, Pascal Bercher

LLM-Only PDDL Domain Repair with Open-Weight Models

Read the original on arXiv AI →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Sep 11

Grounded Evaluation and Repair for NL-to-PDDL Problem Generation

The paper presents an end‑to‑end pipeline for translating natural language planning descriptions into PDDL problem instances using large language models. It incorporates multiple checks—syntactic parsing, planner success, domain conformance, an LLM critic, and iterative repair—to ensure faithfulness to the original task. Experiments on Planetarium, AutoPlanBench, and curated PDDL~2.1 problems reveal that operational success can diverge from benchmark‑reference reconstruction, and that structured repair improves outcomes while PDDL~2.1 remains challenging for reference reconstruction.

By Joana Rosa, Pedro Santos, Valdemar Oliveira, Rom\~ao Silva, L. Miguel Silveira, Bruno Martins
arXiv AI
Sep 17

Which LLM is Best for Translating Natural Language Goals to PDDL

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 AI
Sep 1

Understanding Automated Program Repair Agents Through the Lens of Traceability: An Empirical Study

The paper presents a systematic analysis of five state‑of‑the‑art automated program repair agents, tracing their decision‑making across 500 real‑world repair tasks. It finds that while the agents perform well on simple fixes, they struggle with logic‑intensive bugs, often producing verbose, overfitted patches that pass tests without addressing root causes. Key bottlenecks identified include poor test generation, limited regression test selection, and reliance on primitive tooling without access to debuggers or advanced program analysis tools.

By Ira Ceka, Hailie Mitchell, Saurabh Pujar, Luca Buratti, Shyam Ramji, Junfeng Yang, Gail Kaiser, Baishakhi Ray