Testing the Planning Claims of LLM-Based Agents against Formal Semantics

AI planning provides agents the ability to act autonomously towards achieving a goal in a given environment. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have introduced the prospect of using unstructured input for planning, making LLMs in planning an active area of research, especially for supporting autonomous agents. However, LLMs remain unreliable as long-horizon planners, since some of the plans they produce contain mistaken or hallucinated actions; executing such plans could lead to unexpected and harmful outcomes. Existing benchmarks for LLMs in planning primarily rely on binary evaluation metrics, providing limited insight into the quality of plans that do not achieve the goal, and how far those are from becoming valid. In this paper, we frame the evaluation of LLMs in planning as a natural language processing (NLP) task, as LLMs are themselves NLP models. We propose a pipeline comprising three NLP-based steps that assess plan quality from complementary perspectives, followed by a symbolic planning step to achieve a valid plan, to provide a finer-grained understanding of the quality of invalid plans. In our experiments, we find no clear evidence of logical derivation or state-tracking during LLM plan generation -- on average, for all non-empty plans, only 3.55 actions per plan are executable, despite symbolically-generated optimal plans having an average length of 9.47 actions, which suggests that LLMs are still far from the reliability of symbolic planners. Our suite of metrics is further used to investigate patterns in LLM plan generation over time, and can provide a useful metric for assessing the quality of individual invalid plans.

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.

Task planning, the problem of sequencing actions to reach a goal from an initial state, is a core capability requirement for autonomous robotic systems. Whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as viable planners alongside classical symbolic methods remains an open question. We present PyPDDLEngine, an open-source Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL) simulation engine that exposes planning operations as LLM tool calls through a Model Context Protocol (MCP) interface. Rather than committing to a complete action sequence upfront, the LLM acts as an interactive search policy that selects one action at a time, observes each resulting state, and can reset and retry. We evaluate four approaches on 102 International Planning Competition (IPC) Blocksworld instances under a uniform 180-second budget: Fast Downward lama-first and seq-sat-lama-2011 as classical baselines, direct LLM planning (Claude Haiku 4.5), and agentic LLM planning via PyPDDLEngine. Fast Downward achieves 85.3% success. The direct and agentic LLM approaches achieve 63.7% and 66.7%, respectively, a consistent but modest three-percentage-point advantage for the agentic approach at $5.7\times$ higher token cost per solution. Across most co-solved difficulty blocks, both LLM approaches produce shorter plans than seq-sat-lama-2011 despite its iterative quality improvement, a result consistent with training-data recall rather than generalisable planning. These results suggest that agentic gains depend on the nature of environmental feedback. Coding agents benefit from externally grounded signals such as compiler errors and test failures, whereas PDDL step feedback is self-assessed, leaving the agent to evaluate its own progress without external verification.