Translating natural-language planning intent into verified plans is a longstanding challenge: people communicate goals in language, while classical planners require formal PDDL specifications. Recent agentic frameworks bridge this gap by orchestrating a pool of specialized repair agents inside a verifier-checked refinement loop, but the orchestrator at the centre is itself a prompted frontier LLM, paying a frontier-LLM API call at every refinement step.
arXiv:2609.00455v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are being used as policies for autonomous decision-making and planning in many domains. Despite their strong reasoning cap...
By Shubham Kumar, Harshit Kumar, Narendra Ahuja, Saurabh Jha
arXiv:2606. 14574v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as planners for autonomous agents in household environments.
By Xiaoxin Lu, Ranran Haoran Zhang, Rui Zhang
arXiv:2609.38108v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) enable agents to solve long-horizon tasks by generating a plan and then executing it in an environment. However, successfu...
By Subba Reddy Oota, Francisco Herrera, Jordi Cabot Sagrera, Marcos L\'opez de Prado, Shadab Khan
The paper introduces the Belief-State Engine (BSE), an inference module that supplies a large language model (LLM) with a Bayesian posterior over hidden states in a partially observable Markov decision process (POMDP). By keeping the raw action‑observation log hidden from the LLM, the BSE ensures the agent behaves as a sound Markov policy on the belief MDP, thereby inheriting classical POMDP optimality guarantees. Experiments on the Tiger POMDP and a red‑team attack‑graph task show that BSE‑augmented agents outperform six baselines in task return, belief calibration, and decision consistency.
By Arnab Chattopadhayay, Debdipta Halder
The paper evaluates the planning abilities of large language model (LLM) agents by comparing their performance against formal semantics defined in hidden PDDL models. Across five domains, four LLMs, six prompting strategies, and three agent architectures, the best setup solved 78% of solvable tasks offline but only 40% online, with limited recognition of unsolvable tasks and no clear benefit from more elaborate prompting. The study concludes that claims of LLM planning competence require validated action traces rather than end‑to‑end success rates.
By Oriol Miro-Lopez-Feliu, Oscar Mir\'o L\'opez-Feliu, Victor Gimenez-Abalos, Javier Vazquez-Salceda, Victor Carballo Araruna, Sergio Alvarez-Napagao