SemPlan: Benchmarking Structured Semantic Planning for LLM-Based Queries over Enterprise Data

Direct text-to-SQL asks a language model to do two jobs: interpret the business question and construct the complete relational query. In enterprise schemas, SQL can execute successfully while using the wrong relationship role or aggregation grain. We study an alternative placement of the stochastic boundary. A multi-turn planner grounds phrases and selects from question-specific governed options; graph traversal, role predicates, grain lowering, SQL construction, and deterministic checks are implemented in code. We evaluate this semantic path compilation (SPC) system against direct DDL-to-SQL generation on the ACME insurance benchmark. On a 38-question adjudicated comparison set with three runs per question, SPC was adjudicated correct on every run for 37 questions (97.4%), compared with 21 (55.3%) for the baseline. The paired discordance was 16 questions in favor of SPC and none in favor of the baseline (two-sided exact McNemar p=3.05x10^-5). SPC answered all 38 questions correctly at least once and produced one refusal and no adjudicated wrong-but-executed run across 114 run outcomes; the baseline produced 29 adjudicated wrong runs and seven additional judge-flagged data-only coincidences on the same set. A strict-equivalence sensitivity analysis increased the paired difference. Additional SPC runs with GPT-5.4 and Gemini-3.6-Flash showed similar question-level robustness, although their per-run verdict artifacts were not preserved. Six additional benchmark items are retained in an all-item analysis and documented separately by failure class. The study supports an end-to-end systems result, not a causal claim that compilation alone produced the gain, because SPC receives governed semantic artifacts that the DDL baseline does not.

Planning is central to LLM agents: before acting, an agent must decompose goals, select tools, reason over constraints, and decide when a task is infeasible. Yet existing agent evaluations often report only end-to-end success, making it difficult to determine whether failures stem from planning or execution. We introduce Agent Planning Benchmark (APB), a planning-specific diagnostic benchmark with 4,209 multimodal cases across 22 domains and five settings, covering holistic planning, feedback-conditioned step-wise planning, and robustness under extraneous tools, broken tools, and unsolvable tasks. Across 12 MLLMs, APB reveals systematic weaknesses in long-horizon planning, tool-noise robustness, calibrated refusal, and inference-time refinement. We further validate APB on 200 ToolSandbox tasks and 200 $τ^2$-bench tasks, where APB-guided refinement consistently improves plan correctness, plan grade, and downstream execution metrics across three representative models. APB thus serves as an upstream diagnostic complement to execution benchmarks. The APB benchmark and code are available in this URL.

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.