Authors: Katharina Stein, Chaahat Jain, Jörg Hoffmann, Alexander Koller
Organizations: Saarland Informatics Campus, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany · German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Saarbrücken, Germany
Generalized planning aims to compute a plan that solves all instances of a planning domain. Recent work has used LLMs to automatically generate and debug such generalized plans in the form of Python programs and achieved perfect test data coverage for several domains. However, whether these generalized plans are actually complete, i.e. solve all instances of the domain, could only be determined by manual evaluation. Here, we present an approach for automatically generating generalized plans in Lean together with proofs of their completeness relative to a specification of the domain constraints provided as input. We introduce a semantic-preserving PDDL-to-Lean conversion, and use an LLM to generate both the generalized plan and the formal proof that it solves every instance satisfying the domain constraints. The correctness of the completeness proof is determined by Lean's kernel. We evaluate our approach on 13 commonly used benchmark domains, using GPT-5.6-Sol as the LLM. For 12 of the domains we obtain generalized plans together with valid completeness proofs. This is a major advancement of the state of the art in automatic generalized-plan completeness proofs.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustration of an example planning task from the Spanner domain and a strategy for solving all Spanner tasks.
Figure 2: Illustrations of the main steps of our approach for obtaining generalized plans in Lean and proving their completeness.
Figure 3: PDDL examples from the Spanner domain.
Figure 4: Conversion [[⋅]] commutes with each applicable ground action when applying this single action (left). Iterating the square over a full plan shows that [[⋅]] also commutes with applying a sequence of actions (right).
Domain
N interactions
Time
GP
Prf.
Decl.
GP
Prf.
total
Basic proof generation
Delivery
1
3
–
121
671
792
Ferry
2
3
–
104
586
690
Grippers
2
3
–
119
661
780
Heavy
1
3
–
36
495
531
Table 1: Number of LLM interactions and run time of the pipeline (in seconds) for generating the generalized plan (GP) and its completeness proof (Prf.). “N interactions” counts the number of interactions, i.e. input-output pairs, with the LLM, including the initial generation and all debugging iterations. The upper part shows the domains for which the basic approach succeeded, the lower part shows the results using the iterative approach on the other domains. For the iterative approach, “Decl.” reports the maximum number of debugging iterations required for a single declaration.
Domain
N decl. GP
N decl. Prf.
given
LLM
given
LLM
Basic proof generation
Delivery
56
3
92
15
Ferry
45
7
83
7
Grippers
51
9
102
23
Heavy
47
5
76
9
Table 2: Number of Lean code declarations (i.e., lemmas, theorems, and definitions) involved in generating the generalized plan (GP) and its completeness proof (Prf.). “Given” reports the number of declarations provided to the LLM as part of the prompt (e.g., the domain formalization and, for proof generation, the complete GP code); “LLM” reports the number of individual declarations generated by the LLM itself.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Domain
Source of debugging problems
Instance Generator
delivery
Silver et al. (2024)
ferry
IPC Learning track 2023 ( Taitler et al. 2024 )
heavy
Silver et al. (2024)
hiking
Silver et al. (2024)
miconic
Silver et al. (2024)
spanner
IPC Learning track 2023 ( Taitler et al. 2024 )
Appendix
Table 3: The origin of the debugging tasks that we used for our experiments and the instance generators based on which we created the validity constraints.
Frontier large language models (LLMs) can generate heuristic functions that guide search to achieve state-of-the-art performance in satisficing planning, where any plan is acceptable. However, these heuristics are not guaranteed to be admissible and can lead to suboptimal plans. We introduce LeanPlan, the first planning system that finds optimal plans with LLM-generated heuristics whose admissibility is machine-checked. Given a domain description and training tasks, an agentic loop uses planner feedback to iteratively improve a reusable domain-specific heuristic, its admissibility proof and the required domain assumptions. LeanPlan implements the heuristic, its proof and an efficient planner with machine-checked grounding and search in Lean 4. We evaluate LeanPlan on ten domains from the International Planning Competition and three new domains, using test tasks with up to 57 times as many objects as the training tasks. With GPT-5.6 Sol in the agentic loop, we successfully generate heuristics and admissibility proofs for all these domains. With the resulting heuristics, LeanPlan usually expands fewer states than the state-of-the-art Scorpion planner and solves more tasks overall.
André G. Pereira, Augusto B. Corrêa, Felipe Meneguzzi +1
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul Brazil · University of Oxford United Kingdom · University of Aberdeen United Kingdom +1
We present GenePlan (GENeralized Evolutionary Planner), a novel framework that leverages large language model (LLM) assisted evolutionary algorithms to generate domain-dependent generalized planners for classical planning tasks described in PDDL. By casting generalized planning as an optimization problem, GenePlan iteratively evolves interpretable Python planners that minimize plan length across diverse problem instances. In empirical evaluation across six existing benchmark domains and two new domains, GenePlan achieved an average SAT score of 0.91, closely matching the performance of the state-of-the-art planners (SAT score 0.93), and significantly outperforming other LLM-based baselines such as chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting (average SAT score 0.64). The generated planners solve new instances rapidly (average 0.49 seconds per task) and at low cost (average $1.82 per domain using GPT-4o).
Andrew Murray, Danial Dervovic, Alberto Pozanco +1
PDDL, the de-facto standard language in the AI Planning community, is designed to specify planning domains: sets of instances that share the same predicates and action schemas. Yet it does not provide any means to specify the actual instance set, i.e., legality constraints on initial states and goal conditions, as well as possibly domain subset constraints specifying an instance subset we are interested in. One consequence of this is that instance generation has always been ad-hoc, with manually written domain- and subset-specific instance generators. Recent work has started to address this, through reasoning and learning methods that however suffer from scalability limitations. Here we introduce an alternative approach, leveraging LLMs to generate instance-generation programs, with built-in soundness guarantees through prescribed checks. We show that these automatically generated instance generators return large numbers of sound and diverse instances efficiently.
Nicola J. Müller, Naya Rudolph, Katharina Stein +3
German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Saarbrücken, Germany · Saarland University, Saarland Informatics Campus, Saarbrücken, Germany · Center for European Research in Trusted Artificial Intelligence (CERTAIN) +1