cs.AIOct 26, 2026

GADAR: Generalizing Across Domains via Action Ranking for Classical Planning

Authors: Rajesh Mangannavar, Pranay Dugar, Prasad Tadepalli

Organizations: Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97330, USA

Abstract

Learned policies for classical planning act without search, but each is tied to the domain it was trained on: network modules per action schema, parameters per predicate, or vocabulary-sized encodings mean a trained policy cannot even be executed on a new domain's predicates and action schemas. We present GADAR (Generalizing Across Domains via Action Ranking), a policy that takes the domain description as input, π(s, G, D), and constructs grounded actions in domains never seen in training, without search. Symbols are described by the roles they play in the domain rather than by their names, in three layers that each extend the previous one: (i) a lifted domain layer embeds D in every state graph through structural signatures; (ii) a binding layer ties each ground action's applicability to the lifted preconditions it instantiates; and (iii) a chain layer states which schema produces what another needs and how far each schema stands from the goal. The same network therefore runs on every domain, seen or unseen. We evaluate zero-shot generalization leave-one-domain-out over eight benchmark domains. A single GADAR policy trained on seven domains solves 58.3% of their test instances, one point below the 59.3% of dedicated single-domain GADAR models, so one policy serves many domains at no cost in coverage; a multi-task control that keeps symbol identity in its weights, while strong on some of the domains it trains on, transfers to none of the held-out ones. Zero-shot, GADAR executes on every held-out domain and exceeds random choice under the same executor on the large test instances of all eight: it solves 22.6% of them on average, against 3.3% for random choice and 0.6% for the same representation without the chain layer, and reaches 68% on held-out Visitall. Zero-shot coverage nonetheless remains well below in-domain coverage on most domains, and we analyze where it is weakest.

Figures & tables

Appendix figures & tables2 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Explore similar work

CardsList
  1. Differentiable Learning of Lifted Action Schemas for Classical Planning

    May 13, 2026Jonas Reiter, Jakob Elias Gebler, Hector GeffnerSymbolic PlanningDifferentiable Programming

  2. Per-Domain Generalizing Policies: On Learning Efficient and Robust Q-Value Functions (Extended Version with Technical Appendix)

    Mar 18, 2026Nicola J. Müller, Moritz Oster, Isabel Valera +2Generalization in RLQ-Learning

  3. GenePlan: Evolving Better Generalized PDDL Plans using Large Language Models

    Mar 10, 2026Andrew Murray, Danial Dervovic, Alberto Pozanco +1Symbolic PlanningLLM-Based Program Synthesis