arXiv:2606. 29700v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Planning often requires symbolic specifications that are both executable and verifiable.
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:2608. 16637v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs remain unreliable for long-horizon planning, often generating logically inconsistent or non-applicable plans.
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.
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.
The paper presents a method for automatically generating generalized plans in Lean, along with formal proofs of their completeness for given domain constraints. It introduces a semantic‑preserving conversion from PDDL to Lean and uses an LLM to produce both the plan and its proof, whose correctness is verified by Lean’s kernel. Evaluated on 13 benchmark domains with GPT‑5.6‑Sol, the approach yields complete plans and valid proofs for 12 of them, marking a significant advance in automated generalized‑plan completeness.
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.
arXiv:2606. 14574v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as planners for autonomous agents in household environments.