ViterbiPlanNet: Injecting Procedural Knowledge via Differentiable Viterbi for Planning in Instructional Videos

Procedure planning requires a model to predict a sequence of actions that transform a start visual observation into a goal in instructional videos. While most existing methods rely primarily on visual observations as input, they often struggle with the inherent ambiguity where different actions can appear visually similar. In this work, we argue that language descriptions offer a more distinctive representation in the latent space for procedure planning. We introduce Language-Aware Planning (LAP), a novel method that leverages the expressiveness of language to bridge visual observation and planning. LAP uses a finetuned Vision Language Model (VLM) to translate visual observations into text descriptions and to predict actions and extract text embeddings. These text embeddings are more distinctive than visual embeddings and are used in a diffusion model for planning action sequences. We evaluate LAP on three procedure planning benchmarks: CrossTask, Coin, and NIV. LAP achieves new state-of-the-art performance across multiple metrics and time horizons by large margin, demonstrating the significant advantage of language-aware planning.

Visual planning asks a model to generate the remaining steps of a procedure in natural language given a partial video context and a goal. Progress on this task is bottlenecked by annotation: clean labeled datasets are small, domain-narrow, and encode a single execution trajectory per example, even though many valid orderings exist. Large-scale instructional video corpora offer orders of magnitude more procedural content, but supervised fine-tuning on pseudo-labels from their noisy ASR narrations propagates segmentation and alignment errors and stays single-trajectory. We identify a key asymmetry: extracting clean step labels from noisy video is hard, but verifying whether a generated step sequence is temporally grounded in ASR transcripts is cheap and scales to millions of videos via precomputed text embeddings. We exploit this asymmetry in RECIPE, which uses grounding quality as a reward for GRPO, turning the noisy corpus into a verifier rather than a label source. The framework applies uniformly to two planner input configurations (Socratic, with a textual history extracted by a frozen VLM, and Video, consuming video tokens directly) and to annotated and weakly supervised regimes. We evaluate on 7 procedural benchmarks using a reference-based LLM-as-judge protocol scoring plans across 6 procedural criteria. RECIPE-RL improves over the base checkpoint at all scales (0.5B, 3B, 7B) and every benchmark, with macro-accuracy gains of +7 to +8 points in-domain and up to +16 points zero-shot. It outperforms supervised fine-tuning on both annotated and pseudo-labeled plans (the latter degrades the base) and remains robust without human annotations. Used as the proposal stage of a prior propose-assess-search planner, it improves over the strongest zero-shot baseline at every horizon on Visual Planning for Assistance, and on COIN it preserves the generation diversity that SFT collapses.

Procedure planning seeks to estimate a sequence of actions to transition from an observed initial state to a given goal state. Current procedure planning approaches directly predict action sequences from latent representations using feed-forward neural networks or diffusion-based inference. These paradigms treat every action as plausible, lacking the ability to enforce task-specific logical constraints that render certain actions irrelevant or not plausible. We propose CEFITO, a procedure planning approach that learns a predictor to express an action-conditioned representation space. Based on this representation space, we formulate procedure planning as a task-constrained optimization problem. Unlike prior methods, CEFITO explicitly reasons over the action space by omitting irrelevant actions during inference-time planning. This reformulation enables effective procedure planning and achieves state-of-the-art accuracy on two established procedure planning benchmarks.