We achieve an average task solve rate of 66% compared to a 29% solve rate by GPT -4's intrinsic planning with chain-of-thought prompting.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance in various natural language tasks, but they often struggle with planning problems that require structured reasoning. To address this limitation, the conversion of planning problems into the Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL) has been proposed as a potential solution, enabling the use of automated planners. However, generating accurate PDDL files typically demands human inputs or correction, which can be time-consuming and costly. In this paper, we propose a novel approach that leverages LLMs and environment feedback to automatically generate PDDL domain and problem description files without the need for human intervention. Our method introduces an iterative refinement process that generates multiple problem PDDL candidates and progressively refines the domain PDDL based on feedback obtained from interacting with the environment. To guide the refinement process, we develop an Exploration Walk (EW) metric, which provides rich feedback signals for LLMs to update the PDDL file. We evaluate our approach on $10$ PDDL environments. We achieve an average task solve rate of 66\% compared to a 29\% solve rate by GPT-4's intrinsic planning with chain-of-thought prompting. Our work enables the automated modeling of planning environments using LLMs and environment feedback, eliminating the need for human intervention in the PDDL translation process and paving the way for more reliable LLM agents in challenging problems.

Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) is a widely used standard for modelling business processes. While automated planning has been proposed as a method for simulating and reasoning about BPMN workflows, most implementations remain incomplete or limited in scope. This project builds upon prior theoretical work to develop a functional pipeline that translates BPMN 2.0 diagrams into PDDL representations suitable for planning. The system supports core BPMN constructs, including tasks, events, sequence flows, and gateways, with initial support for parallel and inclusive gateway behaviour. Using a non-deterministic planner, we demonstrate how to generate and evaluate valid execution traces. Our implementation aims to bridge the gap between theory and practical tooling, providing a foundation for further exploration of translating business processes into well-defined plans.

A line of work in planning uses LLM not to generate a plan, but to generate a formal representation in some planning language, which can be input into a symbolic solver to deterministically find a plan. While showing improved trust and promising performance, dozens of recent publications have proposed scattered methods on a variety of benchmarks under different experimental settings. We attempt to unify the inference-time LLM-as-formalizer methodology for classical planning by proposing a unifying framework based on intermediate representations. We thus systematically evaluate more than a dozen pipelines that subsume most existing work, while proposing novel ones that involve syntactically similar but high resource intermediate languages (such as a Python wrapper of PDDL). We provide recipes for planning language generation pipelines, draw a series of conclusions showing the efficacy of their various components, and evidence their robustness against problem complexity.

LLMs have been widely used in planning, either as planners to generate action sequences end-to-end, or as formalizers to represent the planning domain and problem in a formal language that can derive plans deterministically. However, both lines of work rely on standard benchmarks that only include generic and simplistic environmental specifications, leading to potential overestimation of the planning ability of LLMs and safety concerns in downstream tasks. We bridge this gap by augmenting widely used planning benchmarks with manually annotated, fine-grained, and rich natural language constraints spanning four formally defined categories. Over 4 state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, 3 formal languages, 5 methods, and 4 datasets, we show that the introduction of constraints not only consistently halves performance, but also significantly challenges robustness to problem complexity and lexical shift.

Efforts to improve Large Language Model (LLM) agent performance on complex tasks have largely focused on fine-tuning and iterative self-correction. However, these approaches often lack generalizable mechanisms for longterm learning and remain inefficient in dynamic environments. We introduce OmniReflect, a hierarchical, reflection-driven framework that constructs a constitution, a compact set of guiding principles distilled from task experiences, to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of an LLM agent. OmniReflect operates in two modes: Self-sustaining, where a single agent periodically curates its own reflections during task execution, and Co-operative, where a Meta-advisor derives a constitution from a small calibration set to guide another agent. To construct these constitutional principles, we employ Neural, Symbolic, and NeuroSymbolic techniques, offering a balance between contextual adaptability and computational efficiency. Empirical results averaged across models show major improvements in task success, with absolute gains of +10.3% on ALFWorld, +23.8% on BabyAI, and +8.3% on PDDL in the Self-sustaining mode. Similar gains are seen in the Co-operative mode, where a lightweight Qwen3-4B ReAct agent outperforms all Reflexion baselines on BabyAI. These findings highlight the robustness and effectiveness of OmniReflect across environments and backbones.

Recent advances in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) trained with Long Chain-of-Thought (Long CoT) reasoning have demonstrated remarkable cross-domain generalization capabilities. However, the underlying mechanisms supporting such transfer remain poorly understood. We hypothesize that cross-domain generalization arises from shared abstract reasoning prototypes -- fundamental reasoning patterns that capture the essence of problems across domains. These prototypes minimize the nuances of the representation, revealing that seemingly diverse tasks are grounded in shared reasoning structures.Based on this hypothesis, we propose ProtoReasoning, a framework that enhances the reasoning ability of LLMs by leveraging scalable and verifiable prototypical representations (Prolog for logical reasoning, PDDL for planning).ProtoReasoning features: (1) an automated prototype construction pipeline that transforms problems into corresponding prototype representations; (2) a comprehensive verification system providing reliable feedback through Prolog/PDDL interpreters; (3) the scalability to synthesize problems arbitrarily within prototype space while ensuring correctness. Extensive experiments show that ProtoReasoning achieves 4.7% improvement over baseline models on logical reasoning (Enigmata-Eval), 6.3% improvement on planning tasks, 4.0% improvement on general reasoning (MMLU) and 1.0% on mathematics (AIME24). Significantly, our ablation studies confirm that learning in prototype space also demonstrates enhanced generalization to structurally similar problems compared to training solely on natural language representations, validating our hypothesis that reasoning prototypes serve as the foundation for generalizable reasoning in large language models.

This paper presents a SysML profile that enables the direct integration of planning semantics based on the Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL) into system models. Reusable stereotypes are defined for key PDDL concepts such as types, predicates, functions and actions, while formal OCL constraints ensure syntactic consistency. The profile was derived from the Backus-Naur Form (BNF) definition of PDDL 3.1 to align with SysML modeling practices. A case study from aircraft manufacturing demonstrates the application of the profile: a robotic system with interchangeable end effectors is modeled and enriched to generate both domain and problem descriptions in PDDL format. These are used as input to a PDDL solver to derive optimized execution plans. The approach supports automated and model-based generation of planning descriptions and provides a reusable bridge between system modeling and AI planning in engineering design.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for decision making in embodied agents, yet existing safety evaluations often rely on coarse success rates and domain-specific setups, making it difficult to diagnose why and where these models fail. This obscures our understanding of embodied safety and limits the selective deployment of LLMs in high-risk physical environments. We introduce SAFEL, the framework for systematically evaluating the physical safety of LLMs in embodied decision making. SAFEL assesses two key competencies: (1) rejecting unsafe commands via the Command Refusal Test, and (2) generating safe and executable plans via the Plan Safety Test. Critically, the latter is decomposed into functional modules, goal interpretation, transition modeling, action sequencing, enabling fine-grained diagnosis of safety failures. To support this framework, we introduce EMBODYGUARD, a PDDL-grounded benchmark containing 942 LLM-generated scenarios covering both overtly malicious and contextually hazardous instructions. Evaluation across 13 state-of-the-art LLMs reveals that while models often reject clearly unsafe commands, they struggle to anticipate and mitigate subtle, situational risks. Our results highlight critical limitations in current LLMs and provide a foundation for more targeted, modular improvements in safe embodied reasoning.