MemPlan: Memory-Conditioned PDDL Planning for Partially Observable Text Environments

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.

LLMs remain unreliable for long-horizon planning, often generating logically inconsistent or non-applicable plans. Recent hybrid methods instead translate natural language into the Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL), allowing symbolic planners to produce verifiable plans. However, existing methods frequently rely on rigid generation pipelines, a partial PDDL definition, or human feedback. Furthermore, their evaluation is hindered by the lack of standardized benchmarks with automated verification. To address these limitations, we present PDDLCoder, an agentic framework for PDDL generation from natural language that iteratively generates, analyzes, and refines planning specifications. We further introduce NL-pddlgym, a benchmark dataset comprising 711 planning problems across 23 domains with executable gym environments for the automated verification of plan applicability. Experiments on the NL-pddlgym test set containing 106 problems across 4 held-out domains show that PDDLCoder generates applicable plans for 89.6% of tested planning problems. This improves upon our adaptations of previous PDDL generation methods, which achieved up to 45.3%, and outperforms direct LLM planning approaches, which reached up to 74.5% on the same test set. Our work demonstrates the effectiveness of agentic PDDL generation for planning and establishes a reproducible benchmark for future research on LLM-assisted symbolic planning.

LLM-based planning agents commit to plans of different lengths before interacting with a partially observable environment. Some aggressively commit to a long plan based on assumptions about unobserved states, while others conservatively plan only over what they have observed. Both behaviors emerge implicitly in pre-trained models, whether the LLM outputs a plan directly or generates a PDDL formulation for a classical solver. Aggressive commitment risks costly failures, while conservative commitment risks excessive LLM calls. This choice pits safety against efficiency, a trade-off that has been neither characterized systematically nor made controllable. We investigate aggressive and conservative LLM planners and formalizers on two partially observable domains, where priors are provided as either explicit statistics or common-sense knowledge. Across three LLMs, both strategies reach similar accuracy. Conservative methods achieve fewer failed attempts (safety) at the cost of more API calls (efficiency). Aggressive methods fail more often but replan efficiently only when priors are informative. Interestingly, analysis shows that LLMs treat the provided priors nearly as facts, which risks failure when priors are unreliable. We also explore hybrid strategies with tunable hyperparameters that adjust the balance between safety and efficiency.