Object Search in Partially-Known Environments via LLM-informed Model-based Planning and Prompt Selection
Authors: Abhishek Paudel, Abhish Khanal, Raihan I. Arnob, Shahriar Hossain, Gregory J. Stein
Organizations: Department of Computer Science at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.
Abstract
We present a novel LLM-informed model-based planning framework, and a novel prompt selection method, for object search in partially-known environments. Our approach uses an LLM to estimate statistics about the likelihood of finding the target object when searching various locations throughout the scene that, combined with travel costs extracted from the environment map, are used to instantiate a model, thus using the LLM to inform planning and achieve effective search performance. Moreover, the abstraction upon which our approach relies is amenable to deployment-time model selection via the recent offline replay approach, an insight we leverage to enable fast prompt and LLM selection during deployment. Simulation experiments demonstrate that our LLM-informed model-based planning approach outperforms the baseline planning strategy that fully relies on LLM and optimistic strategy with as much as 11.8% and 39.2% improvements respectively, and our bandit-like selection approach enables quick selection of best prompts and LLMs resulting in 6.5% lower average cost and 33.8% lower average cumulative regret over baseline UCB bandit selection. Real-robot experiments in an apartment demonstrate similar improvements and so further validate our approach.
Large Language Model (LLM) agents have shown promise in multi-step planning tasks, but existing approaches like LATS (Language Agent Tree Search) and ReAct rely heavily on LLM inference during planning, leading to high computational costs and stochastic behavior. We present \textbf{GATS} (Graph-Augmented Tree Search), a planning framework that combines systematic UCB1-based tree search with a layered world model to eliminate LLM calls during inference while achieving superior planning performance. Our three-layer world model integrates: (L1) exact symbolic action matching, (L2) statistics learned from execution logs, and (L3) LLM-based prediction for unknown actions. On synthetic planning tasks with branching paths and dead-ends, GATS achieves \textbf{100% success rate} compared to 92 % for LATS and 64% for ReAct. On a comprehensive stress test spanning 12 challenging scenarios -- including coding workflows, web navigation, and long-horizon tasks -- GATS maintains \textbf{100% success} while LATS drops to 88.9 % and ReAct to 23.9%. GATS requires \textbf{zero LLM calls per task} during planning (vs. 37 per task for LATS) and produces deterministic plans with zero variance across runs. Our results demonstrate that systematic search with learned world models can substantially outperform LLM-guided exploration for agent planning.
Large language models (LLMs), especially reasoning models, generate extended chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning that often contains explicit deliberation over future outcomes. Yet whether this deliberation constitutes genuine planning, how it is structured, and what aspects of it drive performance remain poorly understood. In this work, we introduce a new method to characterize LLM planning by extracting and quantifying search trees from reasoning traces in the four-in-a-row board game. By fitting computational models on the extracted search trees, we characterize how plans are structured and how they influence move decisions. We find that LLMs' search is shallower than humans', and that performance is predicted by search breadth rather than depth. Most strikingly, although LLMs expand deep nodes in their traces, their move choices are best explained by a myopic model that ignores those nodes entirely. A causal intervention study where we selectively prune CoT paragraphs further suggests that move selection is driven predominantly by shallow rather than deep nodes. These patterns contrast with human planning, where performance is driven primarily by deep search. Together, our findings reveal a key difference between LLM and human planning: while human expertise is driven by deeper search, LLMs do not act on deep lookahead. This dissociation offers targeted guidance for aligning LLM and human planning. More broadly, our framework provides a generalizable approach for interpreting the structure of LLM planning across strategic domains.
Automated Planning is a subfield of Artificial Intelligence (AI) where the main objective is generating a sequence of actions, known as a plan, that helps us reach a goal state from an initial state. A planning problem is defined by a set of objects, an initial state and a desired goal state. The objective is to compute a plan that'll lead us from the inital state to the goal state. Programs that generate plans are called planners. In this paper, we did a complementary study to the state-of-the-art LLM called PlanGPT which was released last year. We redid some experiments to verify whether planning with LLMs is \textbf{pertinent} and \textbf{worthwhile}. We also check whether the results obtained in the official PlanGPT paper for plan coverage were correct, and we also performed a more comprehensive study on PlanGPT's performance: in our paper PlanGPT's performance was evaluated using two metrics: Plan Cost and Plan Generation Time. The results of planGPT were compared to those produced by a traditional planner for the same plans and same metrics. We discovered that PlanGPT is no better than a Greedy search strategy.