Heuristic search for a plan can store exponentially many states, even when its heuristic is almost perfect. We instead learn search control, one specification per domain, written as an indexical policy: a generalized policy with registers that hold objects and modes that sequence its rules. We add the choose rule, which loads an object into a register and marks a backtracking point, where one candidate suffices; every other rule must work for all of its outcomes and needs no search. Our main result is that structural termination, which rules out infinite executions, also bounds every execution by a polynomial in the number of objects. A depth-first procedure then finds a plan in polynomial space, however large the state space, with no list of visited states. The cost is time, exponential only in the choice depth, the number of real choices along an execution. Any class that such a policy solves therefore lies in NP, and in P at constant choice depth. We learn these policies with a language model in a counterexample-guided loop that certifies termination, verifies the training tasks, and keeps the choice depth small. With the learned policies, the procedure solves 1,709 of 1,890 test tasks of the IPC 2023 Learning Track and the Autoscale Agile suite, more than LAMA, BFWS, and Levitron, and most of them within one second and 100 MiB.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. The learning loop. The generator proposes a policy Π and revises it using returned evidence. Validation checks structural termination, then every training task by execution and then universal verification. The adversary proposes task-generator settings and keeps solvable tasks on which Π fails. A cycle of three boxes in a row. The generator sends a policy to validation, validation sends a certified policy to the adversary, and a feedback line above the row returns a counterexample or a missing certificate from validation and from the adversary to the generator. A note under the generator gives its objectives, and an arrow down from the adversary leads to a note with the stopping criterion.
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
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.
Learned heuristics have recently become a competitive alternative to traditional domain-independent heuristics for satisficing planning. Existing approaches, however, focus on improving search guidance rather than guaranteeing admissibility, which makes them unsuitable for optimal classical planning. We present the first method for learning domain-dependent heuristics that are admissible by design and thus preserve the optimality guarantees of A* search. Instead of learning a direct mapping from states to heuristic values, we learn to construct abstractions that induce admissible heuristics. We use an LLM-driven evolutionary program-synthesis framework to obtain, for each domain, a program that produces a pattern collection for any task in that domain, and we combine the resulting patterns admissibly via saturated cost partitioning. Empirically, the learned programs encode interpretable domain-specific insights, run with negligible overhead at test time and yield heuristics that match the coverage of state-of-the-art domain-independent baselines on several domains while evaluating each state substantially faster.