cs.AIMay 8, 2026

Parallel Lifted Planning via Semi-Naive Datalog Evaluation

Authors: Dominik DrexlerOliver JoergensenJendrik Seipp

Organizations: Linköping University, Sweden

Abstract

Lifted classical planners operate directly on first-order planning tasks to avoid the computationally demanding grounding step. However, lifted planning is typically slower, as planners must repeatedly instantiate ground structures during search. Many core components of lifted classical planning, such as successor generation, axiom evaluation, task grounding, and delete-relaxed heuristics, have previously been studied through the lens of Datalog evaluation. We build upon this line of work and extend it by developing and analyzing an execution model with two levels of parallelism: rule-level parallelism and grounding parallelism. We further specialize this solver for planning-specific workloads with a grounder based on clique enumeration, which we extend to support semi-naive Datalog evaluation. Our experimental evaluation using greedy best-first search with the FF heuristic shows that our implementation already solves more tasks than the baselines on a single core, and the gap widens as additional cores are used. Moreover, on hard-to-ground tasks where on average 97.6% of the total runtime is spent in Datalog execution, the proposed execution model exhibits an average parallel fraction of 92.4%, while achieving up to a 6-fold speedup on 8 cores in practice.

Explore similar work

May 31, 2026cs.CL

Robust Asynchronous Planning via Auto-Formalization

LLMs can plan by either generating action sequences directly as a Planner or translating tasks into domain specific language for an external solver as a Formalizer. While most real-world tasks are asynchronous with non-uniform durations, concurrency, and execution-time constraints, existing benchmarks hardly cover them. We unify these asynchronous planning challenges under a single formulation and introduce the first three benchmarks that address each at scale. We conclude that the choice of formal representation primarily determines whether planning scales: as dependency graphs grow from 5 to 100 actions, Planner collapses from 96% to 5% plan accuracy and PDDL2.1 Formalizer from 13% to 0%, while CP-SAT Formalizer averages 94% and still achieves 83% at 100 actions. Faithfulness diagnostics show that PDDL2.1's predicate-based planning representation becomes brittle compared to general constraint satisfaction programs, when LLMs must keep predicates, effects, and goals consistent. Execution-time updates of planning constraints further degrade performance sharply (Planner 23.9%, PDDL2.1 0.7%, CP-SAT 46.1%), but a state-aware repair strategy that updates only event-induced constraints recovers CP-SAT Formalizer to 84.5%.
Jiayi Zhang, Jianing Yin, Ben Zhou +1
May 30, 2026cs.AI

Efficient Test-time Inference for Generative Planning Models with OCL Search

Generative models have emerged as a powerful paradigm for AI planning, yet their performance remains constrained by the training data distribution. One approach is to improve generated solutions during inference by scaling test-time compute. A more efficient alternative is to optimize the inference process itself. In this paper, we show that a modified version of a classical Open-Closed List (OCL) search provides just such an efficient inference procedure. Our algorithm synergizes two learned components: a generative model that performs fast rollouts from intermediate states and a heuristic model that prioritizes among candidate reasoning paths. Key contributions include novel exploration control mechanisms and integration of learned models within the OCL framework. Across multiple combinatorial planning domains, our approach outperforms both neurosymbolic search baselines and classical solvers in computational efficiency and solution quality.
Robert Gieselmann, Mihai Samson, Federico Pecora +1
May 20, 2026cs.AI

PlanningBench: Generating Scalable and Verifiable Planning Data for Evaluating and Training Large Language Models

Planning is a fundamental capability for large language models (LLMs) because such complex tasks require models to coordinate goals, constraints, resources, and long-term consequences into executable and verifiable solutions. Existing planning benchmarks, however, usually treat planning data as fixed collections of instances rather than controllable generation targets. This limits scenario coverage, ties difficulty to surface-level proxies rather than structural sources, and offers limited support for scalable generation, automatic verification, or planning-oriented training. We introduce PlanningBench, a framework for generating scalable, diverse, and verifiable planning data for both evaluation and training. PlanningBench starts from real planning scenarios and abstracts practical workflows into a structured taxonomy of more than 30 task types, subtasks, constraint families, and difficulty factors. Guided by this taxonomy, a constraint-driven synthesis pipeline instantiates self-contained planning problems with adaptive difficulty control, quality filtering, and instance-level verification checklists. This shifts planning data construction from fixed benchmark collection to controllable generation while preserving realistic task grounding. We use PlanningBench to evaluate open-source and closed-source frontier LLMs, and find that current models still struggle to produce complete solutions under coupled constraints. Beyond evaluation, reinforcement learning on verified PlanningBench data improves performance on unseen planning benchmarks and broader instruction-following tasks. Further analysis suggests that determinate or well-specified optimal solutions provide clearer reward signals and more stable training dynamics. Overall, PlanningBench provides a controllable source of planning data for diagnosing and improving generalizable planning abilities in LLMs.
Ziliang Zhao, Zenan Xu, Shuting Wang +7