When Planning Problems Become Hard for LLMs: Separating Structural Complexity from Semantic Interpretability

Source excerpt

This page presents AI and research content to help researchers, students and AI tools read, cite and verify the information.

arXiv:2610.26964v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) struggle with classical planning, but benchmarks rarely distinguish structural difficulty from the difficulty of interpreting symbolic vocabulary. We examine seven STRIPS domains with BFS-optimal plan lengths. For predicting structural difficulty without solving an instance, the zero-training delete-relaxation heuristic $h_{\mathrm{add}}$ outperforms learned alternatives on held-out domains (mean Spearman $|\rho|=0.931$), including ridge regression ($0.707$), object count ($0.657$), and the episodic retrieval architecture ARC ($0.400$). ARC also fails to outperform a linear model using the same features. To isolate semantic effects, we progressively rename predicates while preserving states, transitions, and optimal plans. Valid LLM planning success drops from $67.5\%$ to $40.0\%$ between $0\%$ and $100\%$ renaming, while refusals remain at $0\%$. An LLM supplied with ARC's conditioning information predicts difficulty in context better than trained ARC (mean $|\rho|=0.826$). Hybrid routing between an LLM and a symbolic planner depends more on calibration to the target LLM's outcomes than on the structural score selected. Thus, established symbolic heuristics already estimate structural difficulty well; improving hybrid planning requires modeling LLM behavior sensitive to predicate semantics rather than developing more structural predictors.

intelligence artificielle

View the original source

Official or original source: arXiv AI. Always check the details against the primary source.

Back to AI & Research