Large Language Model Planning

Deep research tasks require LLMs to plan what to investigate, retrieve evidence, and synthesize long-form answers across multiple branches of inquiry. Existing training paradigms either rely on short-form verifiable QA as a proxy or optimize monolithic long trajectories, which makes planning and execution difficult to disentangle and yields weak credit assignment for the planning process. We propose DecomposeR, a planner-centric deep research framework that represents research plans as typed directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), allowing planning to be made explicit, structured, and rewardable. We train a Qwen3-8B model in two stages: planner reinforcement learning (RL) first learns graph structure and query decomposition to improve research planning, and answerer reinforcement learning (RL) then learns branch-level execution and final synthesis conditioned on the learned plan. By assigning rewards to explicit planner tokens and structured components rather than to a flat trajectory, DecomposeR enables finer-grained optimization of planning while reducing the ambiguity of end-to-end training. Experiments show that DecomposeR-8B improves over strong comparable open baselines by 5.1-8.0 points on popular long-form benchmarks due to improved planning and answering capabilities.

Current plan-based reasoning methods improve large language models (LLMs) by inserting a planning stage before execution, giving rise to the question $\rightarrow$ plan $\rightarrow$ cot paradigm. While effective, a closer examination reveals an inherent paradigm-level gap: both the planning and its execution stages decide how to solve a problem, while the prior question of what to solve; recognizing the problem type, the applicable tools, and the foreseeable pitfalls; remains entirely implicit. To bridge this gap, we propose PPC (Preplan-Plan-CoT), a framework that introduces an explicit problem-understanding stage, the preplan, yielding a new question $\rightarrow$ preplan $\rightarrow$ plan $\rightarrow$ cot paradigm. Realizing this paradigm requires safeguarding the conceptual integrity of preplan at both ends. Specifically, we design a three-stage synthesis pipeline with a spoiler-score detector that filters out leakage and spoiler failures to build clean preplan supervision, and a composite GRPO reward enforces that the generated plan genuinely follows from the preplan. Experiments across four backbones and five mathematical reasoning benchmarks show that PPC achieves the best results on 39 of 40 metrics, improving maj@16 and pass@16 by +2.23 and +3.06 over the strongest baseline without introducing additional inference token overhead.

One-shot Program-of-Thought (PoT) emits a Python program that prints a primitive-action plan; a single invalid action silently invalidates the trajectory. We introduce RePoT (Recoverable PoT): a deterministic verified replay that walks the plan through the environment to its first invalid transition, then one LLM call that resumes from the verified prefix. RePoT costs at most one extra LLM call on the ~14% of problems where PoT fails. RePoT beats PoT by +3 to +11pp across four closed-model configurations on PuzzleZoo-775 and peaks at 96.9% vs 86.3% on gpt-5.4-mini-medium; against the matched-budget PoT-retry baseline, RePoT wins decisively on Gemini (+3.8pp, 95% CI [+2.2,+5.4]), is within sampling noise on GPT-medium and Claude, and loses on GPT-mini -- a capability-scaling pattern we begin to address with Adaptive RePoT, a rule-based dispatcher that routes between suffix repair and a fresh PoT retry based on verified-prefix length (preliminary). We replicate on PlanBench Blocksworld (+1.1 to +11.4pp) and on four open-weights models (+3.3 to +20.0pp on three of four). On Derail-550, our controlled recovery benchmark, every condition with access to checkpoint information clears >=30% on GPT-medium and >=70% on Gemini, vs <=3.1% for error-only feedback -- showing that checkpoint information, not the specific verified-prefix tail, is the load-bearing recovery signal.

Despite recent advances, LLM-based web agents still struggle with limited exploration, omission of critical steps, and sensitivity to task constraints. Prior work suggests that many of these failures stem from weaknesses in planning, yet the impact of alternative natural language plan representation remains unexplored. To address this, we introduce PlanAhead, a static planner-executor framework that evaluates the impact of plan representation in agent performance. We first automatically categorize WebArena tasks into 3 difficulty levels, enabling consistent difficulty grading without human annotation. Then we systematically evaluate 4 different plan representations on the tasks categorized as hard: sequential subgoals, narrative, pseudocode, and checklist; across different families of multimodal LLM powered agents (OpenAI, Alibaba, and Google). To account for stochastic variability, we introduce two novel evaluation metrics: Achievement Rate (AR) and Solved-Task Consistency (STC). Our results show that both, the plan formulation and the underlying LLM generating the plan, significantly influence web-agent robustness and task success.

Heuristic search is the dominant paradigm in symbolic AI planning, and the strongest heuristics are the result of decades of work by planning researchers. Recent work has shown that large language models (LLMs) can design heuristics for individual planning domains, but no LLM-generated heuristic has so far worked on arbitrary planning tasks. In this paper, we use evolutionary search to produce the first LLM-generated domain-independent heuristics that exceed the hand-engineered state of the art. We let an LLM mutate parent heuristics written in C++, store candidates in a MAP-Elites archive keyed on informedness and speed and calculate fitness scores by blending coverage with solving time. To place the evolved programs in context, we additionally benchmark a broad set of hand-engineered heuristics on their informedness-speed tradeoff, which to our knowledge has not been done before. On unseen testing domains, our best evolved heuristic solves more tasks than even the strongest baseline, with our full heuristic suite spanning the Pareto frontier of said tradeoff. We also find that seeding evolution from the trivial blind heuristic outperforms seeding from the strong FF heuristic, even when the resulting program is itself an FF variant, and that LLM reasoning effort affects how often candidates compile much more than the quality of those that do. Because the evolved programs are plain C++, they slot into existing planners as drop-in replacements and inherit the soundness and completeness guarantees of the underlying search.

Existing benchmarks have laid the foundation for travel planning agents by establishing API-centric paradigms. However, as the capabilities of Autonomous Agents continue to advance, their evaluation must evolve beyond simple tool execution toward handling the inherent complexities of the open web. Current benchmarks bypass core cognitive hurdles: they fail to account for information noise, ignore multi-source factual contradictions, and overlook the necessity of grounding visual perception into logical planning. We introduce VeriTrip, a verifiable benchmark designed to meet the increasing demands for agent robustness and reliability. VeriTrip shifts the evaluation focus to evidence-grounded reasoning over unstructured multimodal web corpora. It establishes a Multimodal Retrieval Base (MRB) derived from real-world sources, forcing agents to autonomously orchestrate queries across heterogeneous data. A synchronized Verifiable Knowledge Base (VKB) enables a cell-wise verification protocol that precisely quantifies factual reliability, distinguishing systematic reasoning failures from parametric hallucinations. Our evaluations across leading MLLMs reveal a critical \textit{retrieval-reasoning trade-off}: the cognitive load of autonomous retrieval significantly erodes instruction retention. VeriTrip provides the rigorous foundation necessary for the next generation of planning agents capable of operating in unconstrained, multimodal environments.

In modern industry, dynamic environments and the complexity of modular and reconfigurable resources require automated planning of process sequences. Capability-based planning approaches address this by automatically generating plans from semantic knowledge models that describe resource functions in a machine-interpretable form. Their practical use, however, remains limited: solver feedback, especially in the case of unsatisfiability, is difficult to interpret, and the knowledge models require adaptation as operational conditions change or requests become infeasible. This paper presents a hybrid assistance system that augments an existing capability-based Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) planning approach with an Large Language Model (LLM)-based layer for natural-language interaction, explanation, and adaptation. Formal planning correctness remains with the symbolic planner, while the LLM layer handles natural-language access and flexible knowledge model adaptation under explicit Human-in-the-Loop (HitL) approval. The system decomposes into four components: Capability Grounding, Symbolic Planning, Result Interpretation, and Planning Adaptation, realized as a routed agentic workflow in which a central router delegates to five specialized agents. The system is evaluated on a modular production system across four scenario types. Of 23 test cases, 9 of 10 knowledge queries and all 4 satisfiable planning cases were handled correctly, 3 of 4 unsatisfiable cases produced concrete repair proposals, and all 5 adaptive planning scenarios resolved into satisfiable plans through iterative, user-approved knowledge model modifications. The findings confirm that combining formal planning with LLM-based assistance substantially improves accessibility and adaptability in industrial automation.

Training large language models as retrieval-augmented reasoning agents typically combines reinforcement learning with an SFT cold start distilled from a stronger model. However, this paradigm overlooks two fundamental factors: the dependency structure among sub-skills, and the possibility that distillation is not the only route to capability acquisition. We study this through Plan, a structured agentic behavior for multi-hop retrieval that decomposes a question into ordered sub-questions before any retrieval is performed, so that each search step can be anchored to a pre-designed sub-question instead of drifting under the influence of partially relevant documents retrieved earlier. However, across three model families spanning 3B to 14B parameters, we find that an identical reward signal induces qualitatively different RL failure modes. This phenomenon indicates that successful training hinges not only on reward design but also on model-specific feasibility conditions: sufficient initial entropy, training stability, and prerequisite sub-skills. Motivated by this, we propose a self-bootstrapping paradigm in which a small-scale seed model generates filtered trajectories that activate Plan in any target model, eliminating the need for distillation from an external stronger model. Our pipeline activates Plan across every tested model and consistently outperforms competitive baselines on multi-hop QA benchmarks.

LLMs have shown remarkable proficiency in general language understanding and reasoning. However, they consistently underperform in spatial reasoning that severely limits their application, particularly in embodied intelligence. Inspired by the success of hierarchical reinforcement learning, this paper introduces a novel method for hierarchical task decomposition in LLM spatial reasoning. Our approach guides LLMs to decompose complex tasks into manageable sub-tasks by identifying key intermediate states and generating simplified sub-environments. However, we identify that LLMs often fail to derive optimal intermediate states due to their insufficient spatial prior, leading to sub-optimal task decomposition. To address this limitation and enhance its planning capability, we propose the MCTS-Guided Group Relative Policy Optimization (M-GRPO), where we reformulate the UCT formula by incorporating the LLM's prior predictive probabilities alongside its epistemic uncertainty. Furthermore, we implement a more fine-grained advantage function, enabling the model to learn optimal path planning. Experimental results demonstrate that our method substantially improves LLM performance on spatial tasks, including navigation, planning, and strategic games, achieving state-of-the-art results. This work paves the way for LLMs in real-world applications.

Real-world user behavior rarely consists of isolated actions; instead, it often forms intent flows governed by spatiotemporal dependencies. To provide integrated service recommendations, we focus on the task of Generative Spatiotemporal Intent Sequence Recommendation (GSISR), which aims to generate intent sequences that are logically coherent and physically executable within complex spatiotemporal contexts. While LLMs offer strong reasoning potential for GSISR, direct industrial deployment is limited by high inference latency and context-mismatched or physically infeasible plans. To address these challenges, we propose a generative framework, GPlan, that internalizes LLM reasoning into lightweight models through two components. First, to enable reasoning under strict latency constraints, we introduce Progressive Implicit CoT Distillation, which compresses explicit reasoning processes into reserved latent tokens, allowing small models to inherit complex planning logic without generating long reasoning text. Second, to address the disconnect between general knowledge and real-world constraints, we design Spatiotemporal Counterfactual DPO. By aligning the model with counterfactual context-plan pairs, we improve sensitivity to spatiotemporal context and reduce context-mismatched plans. Offline experiments and online A/B testing demonstrate that our approach improves sequence coherence and context responsiveness. Our implementation and the anonymized GSISR dataset are available at https://github.com/alibaba/GPlan.

Disasters cause severe societal impacts, demanding rapid coordination of heterogeneous AI tools, from satellite analysis to flood prediction and damage assessment, into coherent multi-step workflows. As LLMs increasingly serve as orchestrators of such pipelines, effective coordination requires more than selecting semantically plausible tools: LLMs must generate executable workflows with correct parameter binding and dependency propagation. We introduce DisasterBench, a benchmark for evaluating structured multi-agent planning over semantically similar but operationally distinct disaster-response tools. To enable step-level failure attribution, we further propose First-Point-of-Failure (FPoF), which localizes the earliest root cause in a predicted workflow, separating primary errors from downstream cascading effects. Our evaluation reveals three findings: planning method effectiveness depends strongly on model capacity; tool mismatch and parameter-binding errors dominate first failures, revealing semantic grounding and execution consistency as distinct bottlenecks; and verbose intermediate reasoning can create instruction clash with structured output requirements, disrupting plan generation. Together, these findings highlight a fundamental gap between semantic reasoning and execution-grounded coordination, underscoring the need for planning frameworks that jointly model semantic intent, execution constraints, and workflow consistency. Code, data, and evaluation resources are available at: https://github.com/TamuChen18/DisasterBench_Open

Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong empirical gains as self-evolving agents for CUDA kernel generation, driven by feedback-conditioned planning across generations. However, how planning decisions attribute and combine heterogeneous feedback signals remains opaque. Standard end-to-end ablations fail to resolve this question, as iterative planning amplifies early perturbations and conflates feedback effects with trajectory-dependent drift. We introduce \texttt{CUDAnalyst}, a unified analysis layer for controlled, generation-level attribution of planning decisions to feedback components via trajectory freezing and selective feedback injection. \texttt{CUDAnalyst} enables stable generation-level evaluation and principled coalitional-style attribution of feedback effects and interactions. Our results show that explicit planning is beneficial only when feedback is aligned, that effective planning emerges from structured multi-feedback interactions, and that high-level plans from stronger reasoning models can partially transfer to weaker ones. These trends hold across reference backbones, representative workloads, and reference induction regimes, indicating that the identified feedback-to-plan structure is robust within the controlled axes studied.

Travel planning in the real world is overwhelmingly a \textit{group} activity, yet existing LLM travel-planning benchmarks reduce it to a single user, where the field is approaching saturation. This single-user assumption sidesteps what makes group planning hard for an agent: discovering private preferences across multiple users, surfacing conflicts, and balancing utility against fairness. To bring the task back to its multi-user reality, we introduce \textbf{\textit{GroupTravelBench}}, the first benchmark for \textbf{multi-user, multi-turn} travel planning. Built from real user profiles, POI data, and ticket prices, it comprises 650 tasks across three difficulty levels, each running in a synchronous group-chat sandbox with cached tool data for reproducible offline evaluation. Beyond the multi-step reasoning and tool use that single-user benchmarks already test, GroupTravelBench probes three group-specific capabilities: \textit{(i) elicitation} of private preferences through multi-turn dialogue; \textit{(ii) coordination} of inter-user conflicts via compromise or subgrouping; and \textit{(iii) planning} that balances group utility against fairness. We pair this with a complementary evaluation framework combining rule-based outcome metrics and LLM-judge process metrics. Across a wide range of frontier models, even the strongest agents fall short on all four rule-based outcome metrics, with plan validity below 12%, suggesting that group-level outcome quality is a key open challenge for LLM travel-planning agents.

Cloud-hosted LLM driver agents provide useful semantic judgments, but their inference latency exceeds stepwise vehicle-control windows. Learned world models predict futures, but they usually keep future generation and action selection inside large coupled loops. We present SteinsGateDrive, a latency-decoupled planner-runtime architecture in which the worldline metaphor from the eponymous story names one plausible consequence of an intervention: the LLM selects counterfactual driving futures before the final control instant, and a runtime reuses the selected forecast only while safety contracts remain valid. The generator builds three world-line roles: alpha nominal ego-conditioned futures, beta interaction counterfactuals around nearby vehicles, and gamma hazard-stress futures such as braking, cut-ins, or blocked corridors. The selected branch becomes a typed StrategicForecast with horizon, validity/abort conditions, fallback, and authority. On a within-subject, matched-seed normal-highway protocol with 10 seeds and 20 steps, GPT-5.4 mini reduces effective lag from +3.07 s at 1-second horizon to -0.01 s at 4-second horizon while preserving the measured no-collision safety boundary. The architecture's safety contribution comes from the atom-predicate runtime check, not from the drift score, which functions as a refresh-frequency knob.

Public transit route planning traditionally depends on structured map infrastructure and complex routing engines, and no existing dataset supports training models to bypass this dependency. We present TransitLM, a large-scale dataset of over 13 million transit route planning records from four Chinese cities covering 120,845 stations and 13,666 lines, released as a continual pre-training corpus and benchmark data for three evaluation tasks with complementary metrics. Experiments show that an LLM trained on TransitLM produces structurally valid routes at high accuracy and implicitly grounds arbitrary GPS coordinates to appropriate stations without any explicit mapping. These results demonstrate that transit route planning can be learned entirely from data, enabling end-to-end, map-free route generation directly from origin-destination information. The dataset and benchmark are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/GD-ML/TransitLM, with evaluation code at https://github.com/HotTricker/TransitLM.

How should an agent decide when and how to plan? A dominant approach builds agents as reactive policies with adaptive computation (e.g., chain-of-thought), trained end-to-end expecting planning to emerge implicitly. Without control over the presence, structure, or horizon of planning, these systems dramatically increase reasoning length, yielding inefficient token use without reliable accuracy gains. We argue efficient agentic reasoning benefits from decomposing decision-making into three systems: simulative reasoning (System II) grounding deliberation in future-state prediction via a world model; self-regulation (System III) deciding when and how deeply to plan via a learned configurator; and reactive execution (System I) handling fine-grained action. Simulative reasoning provides unified planning across diverse tasks without per-domain engineering, while self-regulation ensures the planner is invoked only when needed. To test this, we develop SR$^2$AM (Self-Regulated Simulative Reasoning Agentic LLM), realizing both as distinct stages within an LLM's chain-of-thought, with the LLM as world model. We explore two instantiations: recording decisions from a prompted multi-module system (v0.1) and reconstructing structured plans from traces of pretrained reasoning LLMs (v1.0), trained via supervised then reinforcement learning (RL). Across math, science, tabular analysis, and web information seeking, v0.1-8B and v1.0-30B achieve Pass@1 competitive with 120-355B and 685B-1T parameter systems respectively, while v1.0-30B uses 25.8-95.3% fewer reasoning tokens than comparable agentic LLMs. RL increases average planning horizon by 22.8% while planning frequency grows only 2.0%, showing it learns to plan further ahead rather than more often. More broadly, learned self-regulation instantiates a principle we expect to extend beyond planning to how agents govern their own learning and adaptation.

Growing attention to intelligent agents has put a spotlight on one of their central capabilities: planning. Early attempts to leverage large language models (LLMs) for planning relied on single-shot plan generation, followed by hybrid approaches that coupled LLMs with limited external search. These methods, unsound and incomplete by their very nature, often require substantial resources without yielding better solutions on unseen problems. As the limitations of LLMs become clearer, recent work has shifted toward using them at solution construction time -- generating symbolic solvers for a family of problems that can be verified and then used efficiently at inference time. This trend reflects the growing need for agents that are both reliable and resource-efficient. It also offers a path towards generating maintainable planners with minimal dependence on language models at inference time. In this paper, we argue that this shift reflects a broader realignment of the planning field in the LLM era. We examine three major categories of planner-generation methods, discuss their current limitations, and outline research steps towards a more reliable and efficient LLM-based generation of planners.

Planning is a fundamental capability for large language models (LLMs) because such complex tasks require models to coordinate goals, constraints, resources, and long-term consequences into executable and verifiable solutions. Existing planning benchmarks, however, usually treat planning data as fixed collections of instances rather than controllable generation targets. This limits scenario coverage, ties difficulty to surface-level proxies rather than structural sources, and offers limited support for scalable generation, automatic verification, or planning-oriented training. We introduce PlanningBench, a framework for generating scalable, diverse, and verifiable planning data for both evaluation and training. PlanningBench starts from real planning scenarios and abstracts practical workflows into a structured taxonomy of more than 30 task types, subtasks, constraint families, and difficulty factors. Guided by this taxonomy, a constraint-driven synthesis pipeline instantiates self-contained planning problems with adaptive difficulty control, quality filtering, and instance-level verification checklists. This shifts planning data construction from fixed benchmark collection to controllable generation while preserving realistic task grounding. We use PlanningBench to evaluate open-source and closed-source frontier LLMs, and find that current models still struggle to produce complete solutions under coupled constraints. Beyond evaluation, reinforcement learning on verified PlanningBench data improves performance on unseen planning benchmarks and broader instruction-following tasks. Further analysis suggests that determinate or well-specified optimal solutions provide clearer reward signals and more stable training dynamics. Overall, PlanningBench provides a controllable source of planning data for diagnosing and improving generalizable planning abilities in LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) deployed in real-world agentic applications must be capable of replanning and adapting when mid-task disruptions invalidate their prior decisions. Existing dynamic benchmarks primarily measure whether LLMs can detect temporal changes in a timely manner, leaving the complementary challenge of adaptive replanning under spatio-temporal dynamics largely unexplored. We introduce STT-Arena (Spatio-Temporal Tool-Use Arena), a benchmark of 227 high-quality interactive tasks spanning nine spatio-temporal conflict types and four solvability levels. Each task is grounded in a realistic, executable environment equipped with injected spatio-temporal triggers that can abruptly invalidate an ongoing plan, forcing the model to detect the state shift and construct a revised execution strategy. Extensive evaluation of frontier LLMs reveals that even the SOTA proprietary models, including Claude-4.6-Opus, achieves less than 40% overall accuracies, highlighting the fundamental difficulty of spatio-temporal dynamic reasoning. Systematic analysis of failure trajectories uncovers three recurring error modes of existing models: Stale-State Execution, Misdiagnosis of Dynamic Triggers, and Missing Post-Adaptation Verification. Guided by these findings, we propose an iterative trajectory refinement technique that eliminates these failure patterns from training data, and combine it with online RL to produce STT-Agent-4B which outperforms frontier LLMs on STT-Arena.

In this work, we propose HypergraphFormer, a novel and efficient approach to floor plan generation based on learning hypergraph representations with a large language model (LLM). The model is trained via supervised fine-tuning to generate a hypergraph-based textual representation that encodes spatial relationships and connectivity information within floor plans. We train and evaluate our approach on the RPLAN dataset, and further demonstrate its generalizability on a separate out-of-distribution dataset, which we release in this paper. Our method outperforms state-of-the-art techniques based on rasterized or vectorized representations across a diverse set of metrics. We also show improved data efficiency, particularly under distribution shift. The hypergraph formulation enables the generation of floor plans for arbitrary, irregular, user-specified boundaries by decoupling apartment footprints from their functional and geometric subdivisions. Furthermore, we show that the proposed methodology offers a high degree of editability, making it particularly well suited to design-oriented workflows supported by LLMs.

LLMs have shown impressive success in program synthesis, discovering programs that surpass prior solutions. However, these approaches rely on simple numeric scores to signal program quality, such as the value of the solution or the number of passed tests. Because a score offers no guidance on why a program failed, the system must generate and evaluate many candidates hoping some succeed, increasing LLM inference and evaluation costs. We study a different approach: property-guided LLM program synthesis. Instead of scoring programs after evaluation, we check whether a candidate satisfies a formally defined property. When the property is violated, we stop the evaluation early and provide the LLM with a concrete counterexample showing exactly how the program failed. This feedback drastically reduces both the number of program generations and the evaluation cost, and can guide the LLM to generate stronger programs. We evaluate this approach on PDDL planning domains, asking the LLM to synthesize direct heuristic functions: every state reachable by strictly improving transitions has a strictly improving successor. A heuristic with this property leads hill-climbing algorithm directly to a goal state. A counterexample-guided repair loop generates one candidate program, checks the property over a training set, and returns the first case that violates the property. We evaluate our approach on ten planning domains with an out-of-distribution test set. The synthesized heuristics are effectively direct on virtually all test tasks, and compared to the best prior generation method our approach generates seven times fewer programs per domain on average, solves more tasks without using search, and requires several orders of magnitude less computation to evaluate candidates. Whenever a problem admits a verifiable property, property-guided LLM synthesis can reduce cost and improve program quality.

Large language models have recently reached near-parity with classical planners on well-known planning domains, yet this competence relies on world-knowledge exploitation rather than genuine symbolic reasoning. Goal recognition is a complementary abductive task structurally better suited to LLM strengths: it consists of evaluating consistency with world knowledge rather than generating novel action sequences. This paper provides the first systematic zero-shot evaluation of frontier LLMs as goal recognisers on key classical PDDL benchmarks. Our results show that LLM competence on goal recognition is uneven: some models scale with evidence and approach landmark-based accuracy at full observations, while others remain anchored to world-knowledge priors regardless of how much evidence accumulates. Qualitative analysis of model reasoning traces reveals that this divergence reflects a fundamental difference in evidence integration rather than domain familiarity. These findings position goal recognition as a principled benchmark for the foundational planning knowledge of LLMs.

Operational plan generation and verification are critical for modern complex and rapidly changing battlefield environments, yet traditional generation and verification methods still respectively face the challenges of generation infeasibility and verification insufficiency. To alleviate these limitations, we propose an Integrated Multi-Agent Framework for Generative Operational Planning and High-Fidelity Plan Verification (IFPV). IFPV consists of two tightly coupled modules: Multi-Perspective Hierarchical Agents (MPHA) for generative operational planning and an Adversarial Cognitive Simulation Engine (ACSE) for high-fidelity adversarial plan verification. MPHA decomposes commander intent into executable multi-platform tactical action sequences through the collaboration of Pathfinder, Analyst, and Planner agents. ACSE introduces an opponent equipped with a customized world model, which predicts the future evolution of mission-critical platforms and conducts dynamic counteractions against candidate plans. Simulation experiments in the Asymmetric Combat Tactic Simulator (ACTS) show that IFPV improves mission success by 19.4% and reduces operational cost by 41.7% compared with a single-step large language model (LLM) planning baseline. Compared with a traditional rule-based validator, ACSE increases the average suppression rate by 31.8%, indicating that the proposed verification environment is stricter and more discriminative in revealing the latent vulnerabilities of candidate plans. The code for IFPV can be found at https://github.com/zhigao3ks/IFPV.

Long-horizon household tasks demand robust high-level planning and sustained reasoning capabilities, which are largely overlooked by existing embodied AI benchmarks that emphasize short-horizon navigation or manipulation and rely on fixed task categories. We introduce LongAct, a benchmark designed to evaluate planning-level autonomy in long-horizon household tasks specified through free-form instructions. By abstracting away embodiment-specific low-level control, LongAct isolates high-level cognitive capabilities such as instruction understanding, dependency management, memory maintenance, and adaptive planning. We further propose HoloMind, a VLM-driven agent with a DAG-based long-horizon hierarchical planner, a Multimodal Spatial Memory for persistent world modeling, an Episodic Memory for experience reuse, and a global Critic for reflective supervision. Experiments with GPT-5 and Qwen3-VL models show that HoloMind substantially improves long-horizon performance while reducing reliance on model scale. Even top models achieve only 59% goal completion and 16% full-task success, underscoring the difficulty of LongAct and the need for stronger long-horizon planning in embodied agents.

Multi-step LLM reasoning over structured tables fails because planning and execution share no explicit cell-grounding contract. Existing methods constrain the planner to a left-to-right factorization at odds with table permutation invariance, and score intermediate states by generated content alone, overlooking cell grounding. We conduct a pilot study showing that diffusion language models (DLMs) produce more human-aligned and permutation-stable cell attention on tables than autoregressive models, with a 40.2% median reduction in attention-AUROC variability under row reordering. Motivated by this, we propose TABALIGN, a planned table reasoning framework that operationalizes the contract. TABALIGN pairs a masked DLM planner, whose bidirectional denoising emits plan steps as binary cell masks, with TABATTN, a lightweight verifier trained on 1,600 human-verified attention standards to score each step by its attention overlap with the plan-designated mask. Across eight benchmarks covering table question answering and fact verification, TABALIGN improves average accuracy by 15.76 percentage points over the strongest open-source baseline at comparable 8B-class scale, with a matched-backbone ablation attributing 2.87 percentage points of this gain to the DLM planner over an AR planner on a fixed reasoner. Cleaner DLM plans also accelerate downstream reasoning execution by 44.64%.

An AI system for professional floor plan design must precisely control room dimensions and areas while respecting the desired connectivity between rooms and maintaining functional and aesthetic quality. Existing generative approaches focus primarily on respecting the requested connectivity between rooms, but do not support generating floor plans that respect numerical constraints. We introduce a text-based floor plan generation approach that fine-tunes a large language model (LLM) on real plans and then applies reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) to improve adherence to topological and numerical constraints while discouraging invalid or overlapping outputs. Furthermore, we design a set of constraint adherence metrics to systematically measure how generated floor plans align with user-defined constraints. Our model generates floor plans that satisfy user-defined connectivity and numerical constraints and outperforms existing methods on Realism, Compatibility, and Diversity metrics. Across all tasks, our approach achieves at least a 94% relative reduction in Compatibility compared with existing methods. Our results demonstrate that LLMs can effectively handle constraints in this setting, suggesting broader applications for text-based generative modeling.

Industrial LLM agent systems often separate planning from execution, yet LLM planners frequently produce structurally invalid or unnecessarily long workflows, leading to brittle failures and avoidable tool and API cost. We propose \texttt{SPIN}, a planning wrapper that combines validated Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) planning with prefix based execution control. \texttt{SPIN} enforces a strict DAG contract through \texttt{_validate_plan_text} and repair prompting, producing executable plans before downstream execution, and then evaluates DAG prefixes incrementally to stop when the current prefix is sufficient to answer the query. On AssetOpsBench, across 261 scenarios, \texttt{SPIN} reduces executed tasks from 1061 to 623 and improves \emph{Accomplished} from 0.638 to 0.706, while reducing tool calls from 11.81 to 6.82 per run. On MCP Bench, the same wrapper improves planning, grounding, and dependency related scores for both GPT OSS1 and Llama 4 Maverick.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to complete complex tasks by selecting and coordinating external tools across multiple steps. This requires aligning tool choices with subtask intent while satisfying directional execution dependencies among tools. To do this, existing methods model these dependencies as tool graphs and incorporate the graphs with LLMs through retrieval, serialization, or prompt-level injection. However, these external graph-use strategies all follow a matching paradigm, which often fails to align tool choices with the underlying subtask structure, producing semantically plausible plans that violate graph constraints. This issue is further exacerbated by error accumulation, where an early incorrect tool selection shifts the plan into an invalid graph state and causes subsequent predictions to drift away from the valid execution path. To address these challenges, we propose GRAFT, a graph-tokenized language model framework for dependency-aware tool planning. GRAFT internalizes the tool graph by mapping each tool node to a dedicated special token and learning directed tool dependencies within the representation space. It further introduces on-policy tool context distillation, training the model on its own sampled trajectories while distilling stepwise planning signals. Experiments show that GRAFT achieves state-of-the-art performance in exact sequence matching and dependency legality, supporting more reliable LLM tool planning in complex workflows.

Explicit planning is a critical capability for LLM-based agents solving complex data-centric tasks, which require precise tool calling over external data sources. Existing strategies fall into two paradigms based on planning horizon: (1) full-horizon (FH), which generates a complete plan before execution, and (2) single-step horizon (SH), which interleaves each action (tool call) with incremental reasoning and observation. While step-by-step execution is a common default under the assumption that eager execution monitoring is necessary for adaptability, we revisit this assumption for well-defined data-centric tasks. Our controlled empirical study isolates planning horizon as the key architectural feature and systematically analyzes the effects of topological complexity and tool robustness on both paradigms. Our experiments across Knowledge Base Question Answering and Multi-hop QA show that FH planning with lazy replanning achieves accuracy parity with SH across varying depths, breadths, and robustness levels, while using 2-3x fewer tokens. These findings suggest that for well-defined data-centric tasks, eager step-wise monitoring is often unnecessary, and full-horizon planning with on-demand replanning can offer a more efficient default.

Robot swarms promise scalable assistance in complex and hazardous environments. Task planning lies at the core of human-swarm collaboration, translating the operator's intent into coordinated swarm actions and helping determine when validation or intervention is required during execution. In long-horizon missions under dynamic scenarios, however, reliable task planning becomes difficult to maintain: emerging events and changing conditions demand continual adaptation, and sustained operator oversight imposes substantial cognitive burden. Existing LLM-based planning tools can support plan generation, yet they remain susceptible to invalid task orderings and infeasible robot actions, resulting in frequent manual adjustment. Here we introduce a neuro-symbolic framework for long-horizon human-swarm collaboration that tightly melds verifiable task planning with context-grounded LLM reasoning. We formalize mission goals and operational rules as temporal logic formulas and admissible task orderings as task automata. Conditioned on these formal constraints and live perceptual context, LLMs generate executable subtask sequences that satisfy mission rules and remain grounded in the current scene. An uncertainty-aware scheduler then assigns subtasks across the heterogeneous swarm to maximize parallelisms while remaining resilient to disruptions. An event-triggered interaction protocol further limits operator involvement to sparse, high-level confirmation and guidance. Deployment on a heterogeneous robotic fleet yields similar results while remaining robust to hardware-specific actuation and communication uncertainties. Together, these results support a formal and scalable paradigm for reliable and low-overhead human-swarm collaboration in dynamic environments

HTN planning is a variation of classical planning where, instead of searching for a linear sequence of actions, an algorithm decomposes higher-level tasks using a method library until only executable actions remain. On one hand, this allows one to introduce domain knowledge that can speed up the search for a solution through the method library. On the other hand, it creates challenges that go beyond those of classical state-space search. While recent research produced a number of heuristics and novel algorithms that speed up HTN planning, these heuristics are not yet as informative as those available in classical planning algorithms. We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can generate effective search heuristics for HTN planning, extending the methodology of Corrêa, Pereira, and Seipp (2025) from classical to hierarchical planning. Using the Pytrich planner on six standard total-order HTN benchmark domains, we evaluate heuristics generated by nine LLMs under domain-specific prompting and compare them against the TDG and LMCount domain-independent baselines and the PANDA planner. Our results show that LLM-generated heuristics nearly match the coverage of the best available HTN planner, while substantially reducing search effort on 83% of shared problems.

We present a dynamic policy-learning approach that combines generalized planning and hierarchical task decomposition for LLM-based agents. Our method, Hierarchical Component Learning for Generalized Policies (HCL-GP ), learns parameterized policies that generalize across task instances and automatically extracts reusable components from successful executions, organizing them into a component library for compositional policy generation. We address three challenges: (1) learning components through automated decomposition, (2) generalizing components to maximize reuse, and (3) efficient retrieval via semantic search. Evaluated on the AppWorld benchmark, our approach achieves 98.2% accuracy on normal tasks and 97.8% on challenge tasks with unseen applications, improving 15.8 points over static synthesis on challenging scenarios. For open-source models, dynamic reuse enables 62.5% success versus near-zero without reuse. This demonstrates that classical planning concepts can be effectively integrated with LLM agents for improved accuracy and efficiency.

Large language models (LLMs), especially reasoning models, generate extended chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning that often contains explicit deliberation over future outcomes. Yet whether this deliberation constitutes genuine planning, how it is structured, and what aspects of it drive performance remain poorly understood. In this work, we introduce a new method to characterize LLM planning by extracting and quantifying search trees from reasoning traces in the four-in-a-row board game. By fitting computational models on the extracted search trees, we characterize how plans are structured and how they influence move decisions. We find that LLMs' search is shallower than humans', and that performance is predicted by search breadth rather than depth. Most strikingly, although LLMs expand deep nodes in their traces, their move choices are best explained by a myopic model that ignores those nodes entirely. A causal intervention study where we selectively prune CoT paragraphs further suggests that move selection is driven predominantly by shallow rather than deep nodes. These patterns contrast with human planning, where performance is driven primarily by deep search. Together, our findings reveal a key difference between LLM and human planning: while human expertise is driven by deeper search, LLMs do not act on deep lookahead. This dissociation offers targeted guidance for aligning LLM and human planning. More broadly, our framework provides a generalizable approach for interpreting the structure of LLM planning across strategic domains.

Although advances such as chain-of-thought, tree-of-thought or reinforcement learning have improved the performance of LLMs in reasoning and planning tasks, they are still brittle and have not achieved human-level performance in many domains, and often suffer from high time and token costs. Inspired by the success of width-based search in planning, we explore how the concept of novelty can be transferred to language domains and how it can improve tree-of-thought reasoning. A tree of thoughts relies on building possible "paths" of consecutive ideas or thoughts. These are generated by repeatedly prompting an LLM. In our paper, a measurable concept of novelty is proposed that describes the uniqueness of a new node (thought) in comparison to nodes previously seen in the search tree. Novelty is estimated by prompting an LLM and making use of embedded general knowledge from pre-training. This metric can then be used to prune branches and reduce the scope of the search. Although this method introduces more prompts per state, the overall token cost can be reduced by pruning and reducing the overall tree size. This procedure is tested and compared using several benchmarks in language-based planning and general reasoning.

Travel planning serves as a critical task for long-horizon reasoning, exposing significant deficits in LLMs. However, existing benchmarks and evaluations primarily assess final plans in an end-to-end manner, which lacks interpretability and makes it difficult to analyze the root causes of failures. To bridge this gap, we decompose travel planning into five constituent atomic sub-capabilities, including \emph{Constraint Extraction}, \emph{Tool Use}, \emph{Plan Generation}, \emph{Error Identification}, and \emph{Error Correction}. We implement a decoupled evaluation protocol leveraging oracle intermediate contexts to rigorously isolate these components, thereby measuring the atomic performance boundary without the noise of cascading errors. Our results highlight a clear contrast in performance: while LLMs are proficient in extracting explicit constraints, they struggle to infer implicit, open-world requirements. Furthermore, they exhibit structural biases in plan generation and suffer from ineffective self-correction, characterized by excessive sensitivity and erroneous persistence. These findings offer precise directions for improving LLM reasoning and planning abilities.

LLMs are increasingly used for end-user task planning, yet their black-box nature limits users' ability to ensure reliability and control. While recent systems incorporate verification techniques, it remains unclear how users can effectively apply such rigid constraints to represent intent or adapt to real-world variability. For example, prior work finds that hard-only constraints are too rigid, and numeric flexibility weights confuse users. We investigate how interaction workflows can better support users in applying constraints to guide LLM-generated plans, examining whether abstracting strictness into high-level types (i.e., hard and soft) paired with distinct verification mechanisms helps users more reliably express and align intent. We present U-Define, a system that lets users define constraints in natural language and categorize them as either hard rules that must not be violated or soft preferences that allow flexibility. U-Define verifies these types through complementary methods: formal model checking for hard constraints and LLM-as-judge evaluation for soft ones. Through a technical evaluation and user studies with general and expert participants, we find that user-defined constraint types improve perceived usefulness, performance, and satisfaction while maintaining usability. These findings provide insights for designing flexible yet reliable constraint-based workflows.

Humans solve problems by executing targeted plans, yet large language models (LLMs) remain unreliable for structured workflow execution. We propose RunAgent, a multi-agent plan execution platform that interprets natural-language plans while enforcing stepwise execution through constraints and rubrics. RunAgent bridges the expressiveness of natural language with the determinism of programming via an agentic language with explicit control constructs (e.g., \texttt{IF}, \texttt{GOTO}, \texttt{FORALL}). Beyond verifying syntactic and semantic verification of the step output, which is performed based on the specific instruction of each step, RunAgent autonomously derives and validates constraints based on the description of the task and its instance at each step. RunAgent also dynamically selects among LLM-based reasoning, tool usage, and code generation and execution (e.g., in Python), and incorporates error correction mechanisms to ensure correctness. Finally, RunAgent filters the context history by retaining only relevant information during the execution of each step. Evaluations on Natural-plan and SciBench Datasets demonstrate that RunAgent outperforms baseline LLMs and state-of-the-art PlanGEN methods.

Deploying a neuro-symbolic task planner on a new domain today requires significant manual effort: a domain expert must author relaxation and complementary rules, and hundreds of training problems must be solved to supervise a Graph Neural Network (GNN) object scorer. We propose LLM-Flax, a three-stage framework that eliminates all three sources of manual effort using a locally hosted LLM given only a PDDL domain file. Stage 1 automatically generates relaxation and complementary rules via structured prompting with format validation and self-correction. Stage 2 introduces LLM-guided failure recovery with a feasibility-gated budget policy that explicitly reserves API latency cost before each LLM call, preventing the downstream relaxation fallback from being starved. Stage 3 replaces the domain-trained GNN entirely with zero-shot LLM object importance scoring, requiring no training data. We evaluate all three stages on the MazeNamo benchmark across 10x10, 12x12, and 15x15 grids (8 benchmarks total). LLM-Flax achieves average SR 0.945 versus the manual baseline's 0.828 (+0.117), matching or outperforming manual rules on every one of the eight benchmarks. On 12x12 Expert, LLM-Flax attains SR 0.733 where the manual planner fails entirely (SR 0.000); on 15x15 Hard, it achieves SR 1.000 versus Manual's 0.900. Stage 3 demonstrates feasibility (SR 0.720 on 12x12 Hard with no training data) but faces a context-window bottleneck at scale, pointing to the primary open challenge for future work.

We study clinical trial table reasoning, where answers are not directly stored in visible cells but must be reasoned from semantic understanding through normalization, classification, extraction, or lightweight domain reasoning. Motivated by the observation that current LLM approaches often suffer from "bad reasoning" under implicit planning assumptions, we focus on settings in which the model must recover implicit attributes such as therapy type, added agents, endpoint roles, or follow-up status from partially observed clinical-trial tables. We propose SCOPE (Structured Clinical hybrid Planning for Evidence retrieval in clinical trials), a multi-LLM planner-based framework that decomposes the task into row selection, structured planning, and execution. The planner makes the source field, reasoning rules, and output constraints explicit before answer generation, reducing ambiguity relative to direct prompting. We evaluate SCOPE on 1,500 hybrid reasoning questions over oncology clinical-trial tables against zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought, TableGPT2, Blend-SQL, and EHRAgent. Results show that explicit multi-LLM planning improves accuracy for reasoning-based questions while offering a stronger accuracy-efficiency tradeoff than heavier agentic baselines. Our findings position clinical trial reasoning as a distinct table understanding problem and highlight hybrid planner-based decomposition as an effective solution

Large language models have demonstrated strong reasoning capabilities in general knowledge question answering. However, their ability to handle temporal information remains limited. To address this limitation, existing approaches often involve external tools or manual verification and are tailored to specific scenarios, leading to poor generalizability. Moreover, these methods apply a fixed pipeline to all questions, overlooking the fact that different types of temporal questions require distinct reasoning strategies, which leads to unnecessary processing for simple cases and inadequate reasoning for complex ones. To this end, we propose AdapTime, an adaptive temporal reasoning method that dynamically executes reasoning steps based on the input context. Specifically, it involves three temporal reasoning actions: reformulate, rewrite and review, with an LLM planner guiding the reasoning process. AdapTime integrates seamlessly with state-of-the-art LLMs and significantly enhances their temporal reasoning capabilities without relying on external support. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach.

The success of large language models (LLMs) across diverse NLP tasks has elevated the importance of reasoning chain optimization as a critical step in aligning model behavior with task objectives. Existing reasoning chain tuning methods often rely on black-box heuristics or gradient-free search, which lack interpretability, generalization, and sample efficiency. In this work, we introduce \textbf{Thoughts-as-Planning}, a novel framework that formalizes reasoning chain optimization as a sequential decision-making process over a latent semantic space. We model the LLM as a partially observable environment and learn a latent world model that simulates the effect of reasoning chain edits on downstream outputs. A proximity-preserving embedding space is constructed to encode reasoning chain-response dynamics, enabling planning via gradient descent or reinforcement learning. Our method supports multi-scale abstraction, allowing reasoning chain edits at token, segment, and instruction levels to be integrated into a unified planner. Through extensive experiments on language understanding and generation tasks, we demonstrate that Thoughts-as-Planning outperforms state-of-the-art reasoning chain tuning baselines in efficiency, robustness, and generalization, while offering interpretability through its structured planning trajectory. Our code is available at https://github.com/FastLM/Thoughts-as-Planning.

Embodied AI agents increasingly rely on large language models (LLMs) for planning, yet per-step LLM calls impose severe latency and cost. In this paper, we show that embodied tasks exhibit strong plan locality, where the next plan is largely predictable from the current one. Building on this, we introduce AgenticCache, a planning framework that reuses cached plans to avoid per-step LLM calls. In AgenticCache, each agent queries a runtime cache of frequent plan transitions, while a background Cache Updater asynchronously calls the LLM to validate and refine cached entries. Across four multi-agent embodied benchmarks, AgenticCache improves task success rate by 22% on average across 12 configurations (4 benchmarks x 3 models), reduces simulation latency by 65%, and lowers token usage by 50%. Cache-based plan reuse thus offers a practical path to low-latency, low-cost embodied agents. Code is available at https://github.com/hojoonleokim/MLSys26_AgenticCache.

While LLMs demonstrate remarkable fluency in narrative generation, existing methods struggle to maintain global narrative coherence, contextual logical consistency, and smooth character development, often producing monotonous scripts with structural fractures. To this end, we introduce PLOTTER, a framework that performs narrative planning on structural graph representations instead of the direct sequential text representations used in existing work. Specifically, PLOTTER executes the Evaluate-Plan-Revise cycle on the event graph and character graph. By diagnosing and repairing issues of the graph topology under rigorous logical constraints, the model optimizes the causality and narrative skeleton before complete context generation. Experiments demonstrate that PLOTTER significantly outperforms representative baselines across diverse narrative scenarios. These findings verify that planning narratives on structural graph representations-rather than directly on text-is crucial to enhance the long context reasoning of LLMs in complex narrative generation.

Large language models are increasingly used as planners for robotic systems, yet how safely they plan remains an open question. To evaluate safe planning systematically, we introduce DESPITE, a benchmark of 12,279 tasks spanning physical and normative dangers with fully deterministic validation. Across 23 models, even near-perfect planning ability does not ensure safety: the best-planning model fails to produce a valid plan on only 0.4% of tasks but produces dangerous plans on 28.3%. Among 18 open-source models from 3B to 671B parameters, planning ability improves substantially with scale (0.4-99.3%) while safety awareness remains relatively flat (38-57%). We identify a multiplicative relationship between these two capacities, showing that larger models complete more tasks safely primarily through improved planning, not through better danger avoidance. Three proprietary reasoning models reach notably higher safety awareness (71-81%), while non-reasoning proprietary models and open-source reasoning models remain below 57%. As planning ability approaches saturation for frontier models, improving safety awareness becomes a central challenge for deploying language-model planners in robotic systems.

Process Reward Models (PRMs) have emerged as a powerful tool for providing step-level feedback when evaluating the reasoning of Large Language Models (LLMs), which frequently produce chains of thought (CoTs) containing errors even when the final answer is correct. However, existing PRM datasets remain expensive to construct, prone to annotation errors, and predominantly limited to the mathematical domain. This work introduces a novel and scalable approach to PRM dataset generation based on planning logical problems expressed in the Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL). Using this method, we generate a corpus of approximately one million reasoning steps across various PDDL domains and use it to train PRMs. Experimental results show that augmenting widely-used PRM training datasets with PDDL-derived data yields substantial improvements in both mathematical and non-mathematical reasoning, as demonstrated across multiple benchmarks. These findings indicate that planning problems constitute a scalable and effective resource for generating robust, precise, and fine-grained training data for PRMs, going beyond the classical mathematical sources that dominate this field.

LLM-powered systems require complex multi-step decision-making abilities to solve real-world tasks, yet current planning approaches face a trade-off between the high latency of inference-time search and the limited generalization of supervised fine-tuning. To address this limitation, we introduce \textbf{SGA-MCTS}, a framework that casts LLM planning as non-parametric retrieval. Offline, we leverage Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to explore the solution space and distill high-fidelity trajectories into State-Goal-Action (SGA) atoms. These atoms are de-lexicalized primitives that abstract concrete entities into symbolic slots, preserving reusable causal logic while discarding domain-specific noise. Online, a retrieval-augmented agent employs a hybrid symbolic-semantic mechanism to fetch relevant SGAs and re-ground them into the current context as soft reasoning hints. Empirical results on complex benchmarks demonstrate that this paradigm enables frozen, open-weights models to match the performance of SOTA systems (e.g., GPT-5) without task-specific fine-tuning. By effectively amortizing the heavy computational cost of search, SGA-MCTS achieves System 2 reasoning depth at System 1 inference speeds, rendering autonomous planning both scalable and real-time feasible.

Recent work provides overwhelming evidence that LLMs, even those trained to scale their reasoning trace, quickly deteriorate at planning as problems become more complex. LLM-as-Formalizers aim to address this by employing LLMs as a bridge to translate natural language descriptions into structured planning representations such as PDDL, which are then fed to a programmatic solver. We observe that its success may be overstated because planning problem descriptions in standard benchmarks often have a one-to-one mapping to PDDL, which departs from real use cases. To address this, we introduce the notion of unraveling problems where a natural yet succinct description translates into a very large PDDL representation. Using unraveling variants of four standard planning domains, we demonstrate that LLM Formalizers also do not always scale. We tackle this challenge by introducing a new paradigm, LLM-as-Higher-Order-Formalizer, where the LLM generates a high-level program that captures the recurrent logic within the description and in turn generates the larger PDDL representation. This decouples token output from the combinatorial explosion of the underlying formalization and search space, leading to improved performance for complex problems.

When automating plan generation for a real-world sequential decision problem, the goal is often not to replace the human planner, but to facilitate an iterative reasoning and elicitation process, where the human's role is to guide the AI planner according to their preferences and expertise. In this context, explanations that respond to users' questions are crucial to improve their understanding of potential solutions and increase their trust in the system. To enable natural interaction with such a system, we present a multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) architecture that is agnostic to the explanation framework and enables user- and context-dependent interactive explanations. We also describe an instantiation of this framework for goal-conflict explanations, which we use to conduct a user study comparing the LLM-powered interaction with a baseline template-based explanation interface.

Multi-constraint planning involves identifying, evaluating, and refining candidate plans while satisfying multiple, potentially conflicting constraints. Existing large language model (LLM) approaches face fundamental limitations in this domain. Pure reasoning paradigms, which rely on long natural language chains, are prone to inconsistency, error accumulation, and prohibitive cost as constraints compound. Conversely, LLMs combined with coding- or solver-based strategies lack flexibility: they often generate problem-specific code from scratch or depend on fixed solvers, failing to capture generalizable logic across diverse problems. To address these challenges, we introduce the Scalable COde Planning Engine (SCOPE), a framework that disentangles query-specific reasoning from generic code execution. By separating reasoning from execution, SCOPE produces solver functions that are consistent, deterministic, and reusable across queries while requiring only minimal changes to input parameters. SCOPE achieves state-of-the-art performance while lowering cost and latency. For example, with GPT-4o, it reaches 93.1% success on TravelPlanner, a 61.6% gain over the best baseline (CoT) while cutting inference cost by 1.4x and time by ~4.67x. Code is available at https://github.com/DerrickGXD/SCOPE.

Current evaluations of Large Language Model (LLM) agents primarily emphasize task completion, often overlooking resource efficiency and adaptability. This neglects a crucial capability: agents' ability to devise and adjust cost-optimal plans in response to changing environments. To bridge this gap, we introduce CostBench, a scalable, cost-centric benchmark designed to evaluate agents' economic reasoning and replanning abilities. Situated in the travel-planning domain, CostBench comprises tasks solvable via multiple sequences of atomic and composite tools with diverse, customizable costs. It also supports four types of dynamic blocking events, such as tool failures and cost changes, to simulate real-world unpredictability and necessitate agents to adapt in real time. Evaluating leading open-sourced and proprietary models on CostBench reveals a substantial gap in cost-aware planning: agents frequently fail to identify cost-optimal solutions in static settings, with even GPT-5 achieving less than 75% exact match rate on the hardest tasks, and performance further dropping by around 40% under dynamic conditions. By diagnosing these weaknesses, CostBench lays the groundwork for developing future agents that are both economically rational and robust.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential to accelerate scientific discovery as valuable tools for analyzing data, generating hypotheses, and supporting innovative approaches in various scientific fields. In this work, we investigate how LLMs can handle the transition from conceptual research ideas to well-structured research plans. Effective research planning not only supports scientists in advancing their research but also represents a crucial capability for the development of autonomous research agents. Despite its importance, the field lacks a systematic understanding of LLMs' research planning capability. To rigorously measure this capability, we introduce the Idea2Plan task and Idea2Plan Bench, a set of benchmarks built from ICML 2025 and Nature Mental Health papers released after major LLM training cutoffs. Each benchmark instance includes a research idea and a grading rubric capturing the key components of valid plans. We further propose Idea2Plan JudgeEval, a complementary benchmark to assess the reliability of LLM-based judges against expert annotations. Experimental results show that GPT-5 achieves the strongest performance on the benchmark, though substantial headroom remains for improvement. Our study provides new insights into LLMs' capability for research planning and lays the groundwork for future progress.

Many LLMs plan before they act, yet planning and execution are often still entangled in one long generation trace, enforced only through prompts, or split across separate components. We argue that these two stages call for different computation: planning benefits from diversity and breadth, whereas execution demands precision and faithful adherence to a chosen strategy. Treating them as a single undifferentiated chain wastes tokens on routine derivation and makes it costly to explore alternative strategies at test time. We present the \textbf{Explore-Execute Chain (E\textsuperscript{2}C)}, which keeps both stages in one model but separates them structurally: a stochastic \textit{Exploration} phase drafts a concise high-level plan, and a deterministic \textit{Execution} phase carries it out. Causal SFT and RL train this split so that exploration stays informative and execution remains plan-faithful. Once plans are short yet decisive, extra inference compute can be directed to exploration rather than to repeatedly decoding full solutions. On AIME'2024 at $K{=}32$, \textbf{E\textsuperscript{2}C-ReAct Loop} reaches 53.3% accuracy with only 12.4k tokens, outperforming Tree-of-Thoughts ($N{=}32$: 50.0%, 71.3k). The same structure also supports lightweight domain adaptation: \textbf{Exploration-Focused SFT (EF-SFT)} updates only the planning phase, uses 3.5% of the tokens required by standard SFT, and improves medical benchmark accuracy by up to 14.5%.

When an interactive benchmark reports a single success rate for a language-model agent, it is rarely clear what that number measures. A failure can come from perception, ambiguous instructions, retrieval, missing commonsense about what actions do, an incorrect model of the dynamics, or planning, and an aggregate score does not separate them. LLM-BabyBench recasts the procedurally generated BabyAI gridworld as a fully observable, purely textual environment in which every source of failure but planning is removed by construction. The whole grid is serialised into the prompt, instructions come from a small formal grammar, every object's coordinate is stated, the six actions and their effects are specified, and a deterministic expert validates each answer by executing it rather than judging it. On this substrate we define the PPD suite: Predict asks for the state that follows an action sequence, Plan for an action sequence that reaches a goal, and Decompose for a subgoal sequence that achieves a mission, scored by three assistance-aware metrics that separate understanding a mission from sequencing it. Across seven frontier and open models, simulation is far ahead of planning for every model, near saturation for the strongest and well short of it for the weakest, and the length of the required solution, not grid size or obstacle count, governs planning failure. Each model has a characteristic horizon beyond which single-attempt success collapses. Where enough instances are solved to support the ratio, returned plans stay near-optimal. Models that write out their working show why: they commit to one family of corridor-shaped route and verify it with no means of backing out, so what they return is either near-optimal or invalid. The same pattern holds one level up: decomposition precision falls to zero on long missions even where comprehension persists.