Vibeleaderboard
← All Intel
Intel / article

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

Source
arxiv.org
Author
Mayukh Debnath, Adeyinka Adedigba, Rammohan Mallipeddi
Date
Why it matters

Planning benchmarks that use meaningful symbol names overstate LLM planning ability. builders should test with renamed or opaque vocabularies before trusting planning results.

Key takeaways · AI-distilled
  • Renaming planning predicates while keeping states, transitions and optimal plans identical cut valid planning success from 67.5% to 40.0%, with no refusals, so part of measured planning comes from meaningful symbol names.
  • For predicting how structurally hard a STRIPS instance is without solving it, the zero-training h_add heuristic beat learned predictors on held-out domains (mean Spearman |rho| 0.931 vs 0.707 for ridge regression and 0.400 for ARC).
  • The authors find that routing between an LLM and a symbolic planner depends more on to the target LLM's outcomes than on which structural score is used, and argue progress needs models of LLM sensitivity to predicate semantics.
Terms in this piece · Glossary
  • LLM — A large language model — the neural network behind tools like Claude and ChatGPT, trained on huge amounts of text to predict what comes next.
  • AI agent — An AI system that doesn't just answer once but works toward a goal in a loop — taking actions, reading the results, and deciding what to do next.
  • agent skill — A reusable instruction file that teaches an agent how to do one job well — the procedure, the tools, and what counts as done.
  • calibration — How well a model's confidence matches reality — a calibrated model saying "90% sure" is right about 90% of the time.
Recommended reads
Comments

Checking sign-in…

Loading comments…