C Results in ALFRED's T ask and New T asks

In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in various artificial intelligence problems. However, they fail to plan reliably, even when prompted with a detailed definition of the planning task. Attempts to improve their planning capabilities, such as chain-of-thought prompting, fine-tuning, and explicit "reasoning" still yield incorrect plans and usually fail to generalize to larger tasks. In this paper, we show how to use LLMs to generate correct plans, even for out-of-distribution tasks of increasing size. For a given planning domain, we ask an LLM to generate several domain-dependent heuristic functions in the form of Python code, evaluate them on a set of training tasks within a greedy best-first search, and choose the strongest one. The resulting LLM-generated heuristics solve many more unseen test tasks than state-of-the-art domain-independent heuristics for classical planning. They are even competitive with the strongest learning algorithm for domain-dependent planning. These findings are especially remarkable given that our proof-of-concept implementation is based on an unoptimized Python planner and the baselines all build upon highly optimized C++ code. In some domains, the LLM-generated heuristics expand fewer states than the baselines, revealing that they are not only efficiently computable, but sometimes even more informative than the state-of-the-art heuristics. Overall, our results show that sampling a set of planning heuristic function programs can significantly improve the planning capabilities of LLMs.

C Results in ALFRED's T ask and New T asks

Recent advancements in Large Language Models have sparked interest in their potential for robotic task planning. While these models demonstrate strong generative capabilities, their effectiveness in producing structured and executable plans remains uncertain. This paper presents a systematic evaluation of a broad spectrum of current state of the art language models, each directly prompted using Planning Domain Definition Language domain and problem files, and compares their planning performance with the Fast Downward planner across a variety of benchmarks. In addition to measuring success rates, we assess how faithfully the generated plans translate into sequences of actions that can actually be executed, identifying both strengths and limitations of using these models in this setting. Our findings show that while the models perform well on simpler planning tasks, they continue to struggle with more complex scenarios that require precise resource management, consistent state tracking, and strict constraint compliance. These results underscore fundamental challenges in applying language models to robotic planning in real world environments. By outlining the gaps that emerge during execution, we aim to guide future research toward combined approaches that integrate language models with classical planners in order to enhance the reliability and scalability of planning in autonomous robotics.

Research, innovation and practical capital investment have been increasing rapidly toward the realization of autonomous physical agents. This includes industrial and service robots, unmanned aerial vehicles, embedded control devices, and a number of other realizations of cybernetic/mechatronic implementations of intelligent autonomous devices. In this paper, we consider a stylized version of robotic care, which would normally involve a two-level Reinforcement Learning procedure that trains a policy for both lower level physical movement decisions as well as higher level conceptual tasks and their sub-components. In order to deliver greater safety and reliability in the system, we present the general formulation of this as a two-level optimization scheme which incorporates control at the lower level, and classical planning at the higher level, integrated with a capacity for learning. This synergistic integration of multiple methodologies -- control, classical planning, and RL -- presents an opportunity for greater insight for algorithm development, leading to more efficient and reliable performance. Here, the notion of reliability pertains to physical safety and interpretability into an otherwise black box operation of autonomous agents, concerning users and regulators. This work presents the necessary background and general formulation of the optimization framework, detailing each component and its integration with the others.

Recent work investigated the use of Reinforcement Learning (RL) for the synthesis of heuristic guidance to improve the performance of temporal planners when a domain is fixed and a set of training problems (not plans) is given. The idea is to extract a heuristic from the value function of a particular (possibly infinite-state) MDP constructed over the training problems. In this paper, we propose an evolution of this learning and planning framework that focuses on exploiting the information provided by symbolic heuristics during both the RL and planning phases. First, we formalize different reward schemata for the synthesis and use symbolic heuristics to mitigate the problems caused by the truncation of episodes needed to deal with the potentially infinite MDP . Second, we propose learning a residual of an existing symbolic heuristic, which is a "correction" of the heuristic value, instead of eagerly learning the whole heuristic from scratch. Finally, we use the learned heuristic in combination with a symbolic heuristic using a multiple-queue planning approach to balance systematic search with imperfect learned information. We experimentally compare all the approaches, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses and significantly advancing the state of the art for this planning and learning schema.

Automated decision-making is a fundamental topic that spans multiple sub-disciplines in AI: reinforcement learning (RL), AI planning (AP), foundation models, and operations research, among others. Despite recent efforts to ``bridge the gaps'' between these communities, there remain many insights that have not yet transcended the boundaries. Our goal in this paper is to provide a brief and non-exhaustive primer on ideas well-known in AP, but less so in other sub-disciplines. We do so by introducing the classical AP problem and representation, and extensions that handle uncertainty and time through the Markov Decision Process formalism. Next, we survey state-of-the-art techniques and ideas for solving AP problems, focusing on their ability to exploit problem structure. Lastly, we cover subfields within AP for learning structure from unstructured inputs and learning to generalise to unseen scenarios and situations.

The concept of abstraction has been independently developed both in the context of AI Planning and discounted Markov Decision Processes (MDPs). However, the way abstractions are built and used in the context of Planning and MDPs is different even though lots of commonalities can be highlighted. To this day there is no work trying to relate and unify the two fields on the matter of abstractions unraveling all the different assumptions and their effect on the way they can be used. Therefore, in this paper we aim to do so by looking at projection abstractions in Planning through the lenses of discounted MDPs. Starting from a projection abstraction built according to Classical or Probabilistic Planning techniques, we will show how the same abstraction can be obtained under the abstraction frameworks available for discounted MDPs. Along the way, we will focus on computational as well as representational advantages and disadvantages of both worlds pointing out new research directions that are of interest for both fields.

Graph learning is naturally well suited for use in planning due to its ability to exploit relational structures exhibited in planning domains and to take as input planning instances with arbitrary number of objects. In this paper, we study the usage of graph learning for planning thus far by studying the theoretical and empirical effects on learning and planning performance of (1) graph representations of planning tasks, (2) graph learning architectures, and (3) optimisation formulations for learning. Our studies accumulate in the GOOSE framework which learns domain knowledge from small planning tasks in order to scale up to much larger planning tasks. In this paper, we also highlight and propose the 5 open challenges in the general Learning for Planning field that we believe need to be addressed for advancing the state-of-the-art.

Goal instructions for autonomous AI agents cannot assume that objects have unique names. Instead, objects in goals must be referred to by providing suitable descriptions. However, this raises problems in both classical planning and generalized planning. The standard approach to handling existentially quantified goals in classical planning involves compiling them into a DNF formula that encodes all possible variable bindings and adding dummy actions to map each DNF term into the new, dummy goal. This preprocessing is exponential in the number of variables. In generalized planning, the problem is different: even if general policies can deal with any initial situation and goal, executing a general policy requires the goal to be grounded to define a value for the policy features. The problem of grounding goals, namely finding the objects to bind the goal variables, is subtle: it is a generalization of classical planning, which is a special case when there are no goal variables to bind, and constraint reasoning, which is a special case when there are no actions. In this work, we address the goal grounding problem with a novel supervised learning approach. A GNN architecture, trained to predict the cost of partially quantified goals over small domain instances is tested on larger instances involving more objects and different quantified goals. The proposed architecture is evaluated experimentally over several planning domains where generalization is tested along several dimensions including the number of goal variables and objects that can bind such variables. The scope of the approach is also discussed in light of the known relationship between GNNs and C2 logics.