Large language models (LLMs) facilitate the development of autonomous agents. As a core component of such agents, task planning aims to decompose complex natural language requests into concrete, solvable sub-tasks. Since LLM-generated plans are frequently prone to hallucinations and sensitive to long-context prom-pts, recent research has introduced plan verifiers to identify and correct potential flaws. However, most existing approaches still rely on an LLM as the verifier via additional prompting for plan review or self-reflection. LLM-based verifiers can be misled by plausible narration and struggle to detect failures caused by structural relations across steps, such as type mismatches, missing intermediates, or broken dependencies. To address these limitations, we propose a graph-based verifier for LLM task planning. Specifically, the proposed method has four major components: Firstly, we represent a plan as a directed graph with enriched attributes, where nodes denote sub-tasks and edges encode execution order and dependency constraints. Secondly, a graph neural network (GNN) then performs structural evaluation and diagnosis, producing a graph-level plausibility score for plan acceptance as well as node/edge-level risk scores to localize erroneous regions. Thirdly, we construct controllable perturbations from ground truth plan graphs, and automatically generate training data with fine-grained annotations. Finally, guided by the feedback from our GNN verifier, we enable an LLM to conduct local edits (e.g., tool replacement or insertion) to correct the plan when the graph-level score is insufficient. Extensive experiments across diverse datasets, backbone LLMs, and planners demonstrate that our GNNVerifier achieves significant gains in improving plan quality. Our data and code is available at https://github.com/BUPT-GAMMA/GNNVerifier.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. An illustrative example of structural inconsistencies in LLM-generated plans. Although all steps are fluent and seemingly plausible, two image artifacts (poster.png and chart.png) are mistakenly input into the opposite downstream tools from their originally intended ones, which is difficult to detect by reading steps in isolation.
Figure 2. The overall framework of our proposed GNNVerifier with four main components.
Method
HuggingFace
Multimedia
DailyLife
UltraTool
n-F1 ↑
l-F1 ↑
Acc ↑
n-F1 ↑
l-F1 ↑
Acc ↑
n-F1 ↑
l-F1 ↑
Acc ↑
n-F1 ↑
l-F1 ↑
Acc ↑
Direct
Raw
79.60
55.27
34.20
85.94
64.36
49.60
97.12
84.21
72.80
73.07
46.36
36.80
+Refine
78.39
52.86
31.20
87.02
65.98
48.40
96.93
60.12
48.20
73.30
38.92
30.80
+VeriCoder
79.78
55.45
34.00
86.69
66.17
50.70
97.44
56.81
46.80
73.86
34.11
26.45
+VeriPlan
79.64
55.95
34.80
86.67
66.14
51.60
97.12
84.22
72.80
78.26
53.89
42.40
+GNNVerifier
82.82
60.71
43.80
88.09
70.74
58.60
97.51
87.45
78.76
76.89
52.82
42.80
Table 1. Performance comparison across four datasets on GPT-4o: Node-F1, Link-F1, and Accuracy are reported in %. The best results are highlighted in boldface, and the second-best results are underlined.
Variant
HuggingFace
Multimedia
n-F1 ↑
l-F1 ↑
Acc ↑
n-F1 ↑
l-F1 ↑
Acc ↑
Direct
Raw
79.60
55.27
34.20
85.94
64.36
49.60
w/o GNN
75.78
51.77
33.00
84.40
66.35
50.20
w/o Stage-II
79.92
55.51
35.40
86.03
66.05
50.40
w/o Stage-I
79.60
57.86
39.80
85.94
68.97
56.40
w/o Node Feat.
80.36
57.94
35.60
86.01
64.53
50.00
Table 2. Ablation studies on HuggingFace and Multimedia: Node-F1, Link-F1, and Accuracy are reported in %.
(a) HuggingFace
(b) Multimedia
(c) DailyLife
(d) UltraTool
Figure 3. Analysis of planning error types before and after correction across four datasets.
Figure 4. The t-SNE visualization of graph-, node-, and edge-level embeddings on UltraTool.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Variant
DailyLife
UltraTool
n-F1 ↑
l-F1 ↑
Acc ↑
n-F1 ↑
l-F1 ↑
Acc ↑
Direct
Raw
97.12
84.21
72.80
73.07
46.36
36.80
w/o GNN
95.47
84.64
74.00
72.62
45.71
34.00
w/o Stage-II
97.12
87.28
78.60
71.33
47.40
35.60
w/o Stage-I
97.12
87.28
78.60
73.33
47.56
37.60
w/o Node Feat.
97.12
87.28
78.60
75.15
50.49
41.00
Appendix
Table 4. Ablation studies on Dailylife and Ultratool: Node-F1, Link-F1, and Accuracy are reported in %. The best results are highlighted in boldface, and the second-best results are underlined.
(a) HuggingFace
(b) Multimedia
(c) DailyLife
(d) UltraTool
Appendix
Figure 7. Analysis of planning error types before and after correction under ReAct cross datasets with GPT-4o.
(a) HuggingFace
(b) Multimedia
(c) DailyLife
(d) UltraTool
Appendix
Figure 8. Analysis of planning error types before and after correction under GNN4Plan cross datasets with GPT-4o.
Figure 9. t-SNE visualization of graph-, node-, and edge-level embeddings on UltraTool under ReAct with GPT-4o.
Figure 10. t-SNE visualization of graph-, node-, and edge-level embeddings on UltraTool under GNN4Plan with GPT-4o.
Figure 11. Hyperparameter sensitivity on validation AUC cross datasets with GPT-4o. Three hyperparameter sensitivity plots showing the effect of tau, lambda graph, and lambda edge on validation AUC across all datasets.