pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.18519 · v1 · pith:O5PJKX62new · submitted 2026-06-16 · 💻 cs.RO · cs.AI

As You Wish: Mission Planning with Formal Verification using LLMs in Precision Agriculture

Marcos Abel Zuzu\'arregui , Stefano Carpin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 00:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO cs.AI
keywords mission planningLLMslinear temporal logicformal verificationprecision agriculturefeedback loopsroboticsnatural language
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dual LLMs with LTL feedback loops ensure natural language robot missions meet user specifications.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper extends a prior LLM-based mission planner for precision agriculture to address ambiguities in natural language descriptions. It introduces multiple feedback loops that apply linear temporal logic to verify generated plans against user specifications. Two separate commercial LLMs handle the tasks of turning natural language into LTL formulas and verifying the resulting plans. Experiments test how well this setup overcomes limitations in LLM-generated LTL while keeping the overall system autonomous and natural-language based.

Core claim

The central claim is that introducing multiple feedback loops leveraging linear temporal logic (LTL) with two different commercial LLMs for specification and verification subtasks ensures that the mission planning system meets the specifications formulated by the user while still using natural language.

What carries the argument

Multiple feedback loops in the planning architecture that leverage linear temporal logic (LTL) using two different commercial LLMs for specification and verification subtasks.

If this is right

  • The mission planning system can now mitigate ambiguities inherent in natural language inputs.
  • Formal verification via LTL becomes part of a fully autonomous pipeline.
  • The architecture addresses and solves challenges in an LLM's ability to generate valuable LTL formulas.
  • Extensive experiments reveal both strengths and remaining limitations of the integrated verification approach.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The dual-LLM LTL verification pattern could be tested in robot planning tasks outside agriculture.
  • Switching between commercial LLMs might introduce variability in performance or cost that single-model systems avoid.
  • Improved prompt engineering or fine-tuning could eventually reduce the need for separate specification and verification models.

Load-bearing premise

That LLMs can be made to generate valuable LTL formulas through the proposed feedback loops and dual-LLM architecture.

What would settle it

An experiment where the dual-LLM feedback system repeatedly produces an LTL formula that fails to match the user's natural language specification or incorrectly verifies a mission plan.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.18519 by Marcos Abel Zuzu\'arregui, Stefano Carpin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A task in precision agriculture: a robot acquiring [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Our proposed architecture follows the guidance of [8] and breaks up MP into five functional roles. The focus of this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example Buchi automata of a mission relevant LTL formula. ¨ C. User Previously, in [21], we only had one LLM agent respon￾sible for generating an XML mission plan. The limitation of this approach is that a single agent can ensure that the produced files encoding the mission are syntactically correct, but cannot guarantee that the produced mission is aligned with the user intent. In this paper, we introduce… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sequence Diagram for Section III-G example query. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visual representation of ”Take a picture of the first tree. If the reading is below 30, take a co2 sample. Otherwise, take a temperature reading. Then, measure another tree, a different one by taking a picture. If it’s less than 30, sample co2. If that reading is less than 400ppm, sample co2 again to confirm. If still less than 400, continue driving to another tree and take another co2 sample. finally go t… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization representation of ”At the first tree, take a picture. If that picture shows less than 30c, take a temperature reading. If that reading is also less than 30c, take a co2 sample. If that reading is less than 400ppm, drive to a far away tree and repeat the entire process. If then the first reading isn’t less than 30c, drive to end.” As an example, we replace ”low reading” with ”less than 30”. Wh… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Though robotic systems are now being commercialized and deployed in various industries, many of these systems are highly specialized and often require an advanced skill set to operate and ensure they perform as instructed. To mitigate this problem, we recently introduced a mission planner leveraging LLMs to synthesize mission plans in precision agriculture based on mission descriptions provided in natural language. While the system demonstrates impressive performance, it also suffers from the inherent ambiguities of natural language. In this paper, we extend our system to address this issue by introducing multiple feedback loops in the planning architecture that leverage linear temporal logic (LTL) to ensure the mission planning system meets the specifications formulated by the user while still using natural language. To mitigate potential bias, this is achieved by using two different commercial LLMs in charge of the specification and verification subtasks. Through extensive experiments, we highlight the strengths and limitations of integrating mission verification into a fully autonomous pipeline, particularly regarding an LLM's ability to generate valuable LTL formulas, and show how our proposed implementation addresses and solves these challenges.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends a prior LLM-based mission planner for precision agriculture by adding multiple feedback loops that employ linear temporal logic (LTL). Two distinct commercial LLMs are used—one for generating LTL specifications from natural-language user input and one for verifying the synthesized plans—while the overall system remains driven by natural language. The authors state that extensive experiments demonstrate both the strengths and limitations of this LLM-centric verification approach and that the implementation solves the identified challenges.

Significance. If the dual-LLM feedback architecture can be shown to produce reliable LTL formulas and to detect violations with high fidelity, the work would provide a concrete bridge between accessible natural-language interfaces and formal-methods guarantees for field robots. The explicit choice of two different commercial LLMs to mitigate bias is a constructive design decision that merits recognition.

major comments (2)
  1. [Architecture section] Architecture section (and associated figure): the verification subtask is performed by the second LLM rather than by an automated LTL model checker such as NuSMV or SPIN. The central claim that the system “ensures the mission planning system meets the specifications” therefore rests on the assumption that the verification LLM will correctly identify violations—an assumption that is not formally grounded.
  2. [Experiments section] Experiments section: the abstract asserts that “extensive experiments” highlight strengths and limitations, yet the manuscript supplies neither quantitative metrics (e.g., LTL-generation success rate, false-positive rate on violation detection, comparison against a model-checker baseline) nor error bars. Without these data the evaluation of whether the feedback loops solve the LLM limitations remains incomplete.
minor comments (2)
  1. Clarify the precise LTL fragment supported and whether generated formulas undergo syntactic validation before being passed to the verification LLM.
  2. Add an explicit information-flow diagram showing the two LLMs, the planner, and the feedback loops.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

Thank you for the constructive feedback. We value the recognition of the dual-LLM architecture as a bridge toward accessible formal guarantees. We respond point-by-point to the major comments below and will make targeted revisions to address the concerns about formal grounding and quantitative evaluation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Architecture section] Architecture section (and associated figure): the verification subtask is performed by the second LLM rather than by an automated LTL model checker such as NuSMV or SPIN. The central claim that the system “ensures the mission planning system meets the specifications” therefore rests on the assumption that the verification LLM will correctly identify violations—an assumption that is not formally grounded.

    Authors: We agree that verification is performed by the second LLM and that this renders the claim of 'ensures' informal rather than formally grounded. The design deliberately avoids model checkers to preserve a fully natural-language pipeline for non-expert agricultural users; translating plans into a model-checker input would require additional formalization steps that undermine the accessibility goal. We will revise the architecture section, abstract, and conclusion to replace 'ensures' with 'provides LLM-based verification whose reliability is assessed empirically,' add an explicit limitations paragraph on the absence of formal guarantees, and discuss the trade-off versus traditional model checkers. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experiments section] Experiments section: the abstract asserts that “extensive experiments” highlight strengths and limitations, yet the manuscript supplies neither quantitative metrics (e.g., LTL-generation success rate, false-positive rate on violation detection, comparison against a model-checker baseline) nor error bars. Without these data the evaluation of whether the feedback loops solve the LLM limitations remains incomplete.

    Authors: The current experiments consist of qualitative case studies that demonstrate both successful LTL generation/verification and failure modes. We accept that quantitative metrics are needed for a complete evaluation. In revision we will add success rates for LTL formula generation over repeated trials, precision/recall for violation detection, and, where feasible, a limited comparison against a model-checker baseline on the subset of cases that can be manually formalized. Revised figures will include error bars or confidence intervals. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: systems architecture paper with no derivations or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper is a systems description extending prior work with feedback loops, dual LLMs for LTL specification/verification, and natural language interfaces. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or uniqueness theorems appear. The self-citation to prior mission planner work is not load-bearing for any derivation; the new architecture's claims rest on experimental evaluation rather than reducing to the citation by construction. No steps match the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities appear because the paper describes an engineering architecture rather than a theoretical derivation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5711 in / 1176 out tokens · 15353 ms · 2026-06-27T00:03:57.561470+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Baier and J.P

    C. Baier and J.P. Katoen.Principless of model checking. MIT Press, 2008

    2008

  2. [2]

    Carpin and T

    S. Carpin and T. C. Thayer. Solving stochastic orienteering problems with chance constraints using monte carlo tree search. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering, pages 1170–1177, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    Cheng et al

    G. Cheng et al. Empowering Large Language Models on Robotic Ma- nipulation with Affordance Prompting, April 2024. arXiv:2404.11027 [cs] version: 1

    work page arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    R. Emsley. ChatGPT: these are not hallucinations – they’re fabrications and falsifications.Schizophrenia, 9(1):1–2, August 2023. Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2023

  5. [5]

    He et al

    K. He et al. Towards manipulation planning with temporal logic specifications. InPRoceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 346–352, Seattle, W A, USA, May

  6. [6]

    Holzmann.The SPIN Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual

    G. Holzmann.The SPIN Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, 2003

    2003

  7. [7]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.07207 , doi =

    W. Huang et al. Language Models as Zero-Shot Planners: Ex- tracting Actionable Knowledge for Embodied Agents, March 2022. arXiv:2201.07207 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    IEEE Standard for Robot Task Representation.IEEE Std 1872.1-2024, pages 1–32, 2024

    IEEE. IEEE Standard for Robot Task Representation.IEEE Std 1872.1-2024, pages 1–32, 2024

    2024

  9. [9]

    Can ChatGPT support software verification?

    C. Janßen et al. Can ChatGPT support software verification?, Novem- ber 2023. arXiv:2311.02433 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Kalluraya et al

    S. Kalluraya et al. Multi-robot Mission Planning in Dynamic Semantic Environments, March 2023. arXiv:2209.06323 [cs, eess]

    work page arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Kalluraya et al

    S. Kalluraya et al. Resilient Temporal Logic Planning in the Presence of Robot Failures, October 2023. arXiv:2305.05485 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Kannan et al

    S.S. Kannan et al. SMART-LLM: Smart Multi-Agent Robot Task Planning using Large Language Models, March 2024. arXiv:2309.10062 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Kumar and R

    A. Kumar and R. Kala. Linear Temporal Logic-based Mission Plan- ning.International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, 3(7):32, 2016

    2016

  14. [14]

    LaValle.Planning algorithms

    S.M. LaValle.Planning algorithms. Cambridge academic press, 2006

    2006

  15. [15]

    Liang et al

    J. Liang et al. Code as Policies: Language Model Programs for Em- bodied Control. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 9493–9500, 2023

    2023

  16. [16]

    A.D Lutz et al. From Spot 2.0 to Spot 2.10: What’s new? In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV’22), volume 13372 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 174–187. Springer, August 2022

    2022

  17. [17]

    ROS-LLM: A ROS framework for embodied AI with task feedback and structured reasoning

    C.E. Mower et al. ROS-LLM: A ROS framework for embod- ied AI with task feedback and structured reasoning, July 2024. arXiv:2406.19741 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Murphy et al

    W. Murphy et al. Guiding LLM Temporal Logic Generation with Explicit Separation of Data and Control, June 2024. arXiv:2406.07400 [cs] version: 1

    work page arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Pan et al

    J. Pan et al. Data-Efficient Learning of Natural Language to Linear Temporal Logic Translators for Robot Task Specification, March 2023. arXiv:2303.08006 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    P.P. Ray. ChatGPT: A comprehensive review on background, ap- plications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, 3:121–154, January 2023

    2023

  21. [21]

    Zuzu ´arregui and S

    M.A. Zuzu ´arregui and S. Carpin. Leveraging LLMs for mission plan- ning in precision agriculture. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2025 (to appear)

    2025

  22. [22]

    Zuzu ´arregui, M.M

    M.A. Zuzu ´arregui, M.M. Toslak, and S. Carpin. One for all: Llm- based heterogeneous mission planning in precision agriculture. In Proceedeings of the IFAC Conference on Sensing, Control and Au- tomation Technologies for Agriculture, submitted