arXiv preprint ·
Testing the Planning Claims of LLM-Based Agents against Formal Semantics
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
LLM-based agents are increasingly credited with the competences of practical reasoning: planning, monitoring, and correcting their own actions. Their success is attributed to the prompting strategies and agent architectures built around the model, such as chain-of-thought, search-based prompting, self-refinement, reflection, critics and tool-using loops. Yet these claims are usually supported by end-to-end success rates, which show only whether a task was completed, or by LLM judges, which are not verifiers. We test LLM planning against formal semantics. Tasks are posed in natural language, but each is grounded in a hidden PDDL model that decides whether every action is applicable, whether the goal is reached, and whether a plan exists at all. Across five domains (two of them new, all released with the paper), four models, six prompting strategies and three agent architectures, the best configuration solves 78% of the solvable tasks offline but only 40% online, where agents mostly act without inspecting the state. Unsolvable tasks are recognised in under 10% of episodes, and heavier prompting strategies use 5 to 22 times as many tokens as direct prompting with no clear gain. In our experiments, planning performance varied more across models than across prompting strategies or agent architectures. Claims that agents can plan require evidence from validated action traces.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
SCARCE: Emergent Institutions in Long-Horizon Multi-Agent Coding Systems
Between Spoilers and Guesswork: Avoiding Over-Specification in Coding Benchmarks
Recursive Reward Improvement via Adversarial Meta-Prompt Evolution
StoBasket: Joint Upsell and Cross-Sell Optimization for Contribution Margin
ReviewPilot: A Multi-Agent System for Screening and Data Extraction in Systematic Reviews
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.