DigestAI news desk

Cut through the AI noise.

Research

LLMs struggle with planning problems as symbolic heuristics outperform learned models

A new arXiv study shows that large language models (LLMs) have difficulty solving classical planning tasks, and that traditional symbolic heuristics can predict problem difficulty better than learned approaches. The zero‑training delete‑relaxation heuristic \(h{add}\) reaches a mean Spearman correlation of 0.931 on held‑out STRIPS domains, beating ridge regression (0.707), simple object counting…

1 source primary source

Key points

  • Zero‑training delete‑relaxation heuristic h_add achieves 0.931 mean Spearman correlation, outpacing ridge regression (0.707), object count (0.657) and ARC (0.400).
  • Renaming all predicates drops LLM planning success from 67.5% to 40.0% while refusal rate remains at 0%.
  • Hybrid LLM‑symbolic planning benefits more from calibrating to LLM outcomes than from choosing a structural difficulty predictor.

To isolate the effect of semantic understanding, the researchers progressively renamed predicates while keeping states, transitions and optimal plans unchanged. LLM planning success falls from 67.5% to 40.0% as renaming moves from 0% to 100%, with refusal rates staying at 0%. Supplying an LLM with ARC’s conditioning information improves difficulty prediction (mean (|\rho|=0.826)) compared with a trained ARC model. The paper concludes that improving hybrid LLM‑symbolic planners requires better modeling of LLM behavior sensitive to predicate semantics rather than creating new structural difficulty predictors.

Read the original at arXiv cs.AI · by Mayukh Debnath, Adeyinka Adedigba, Rammohan Mallipeddi primary sourceOpen source ↗
Topics · follow one to build your own front page
ARC

The headline, key points and digest above were generated by Digest AI's editorial model from the linked sources. Automated summaries can contain errors: the sources are the record. Spotted a mistake? Tell us. Published by Martin K., who runs Digest AI and handles corrections.

Comments

via GitHub Discussions

More in Research

All →

Related stories