Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 33 references

Anticipate & Act : Integrating LLMs and Classical Planning for Efficient Task Execution in Household Environments

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Anticipating the next few household tasks and planning for them jointly cuts the planner's execution cost by about 31% compared with handling one task at a time, the authors report.

desk verdict Sensible integration of LLM task anticipation with PDDL planning, but the 31% execution-time claim is an artifact of hand-assigned costs, not measured execution. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02066 v1 pith:Z32PWZQF submitted 2025-02-04 cs.RO cs.CLcs.LG

Raghav Arora , Shivam Singh , Karthik Swaminathan , Ahana Datta , Snehasis Banerjee , Brojeshwar Bhowmick , Krishna Murthy Jatavallabhula , Mohan Sridharan
show 1 more author
Madhava Krishna
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.CLcs.LG
keywords taskanticipationlargelanguagemodelsclassicalplanningPDDLFastDownwardVirtualHomehouseholdroboticsassistiveagents
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

What if a household robot could peek at the next few chores on a person's schedule and weave them into one efficient action sequence? This paper claims yes: by asking a large language model to anticipate which high-level tasks come next, and then feeding those tasks as joint goals to a classical planner, an agent can reduce the total cost of executing the sequence by about 31% and its plan length by about 12% compared with tackling one task at a time. The result, demonstrated in the VirtualHome simulation environment, argues that the generic world knowledge of an LLM and the guarantee-providing search of a PDDL-based planner are complementary rather than competing. If the cost model holds up, the same recipe could make assistive robots in homes and workplaces noticeably more efficient without needing large labelled datasets.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the joint-goal planning formulation. High-level tasks anticipated by the LLM are mapped onto ground literals in a PDDL domain description—a formal action language with typed objects, preconditions, effects, and per-action costs—and the Fast Downward heuristic planner searches for a sequence of actions that satisfies all these goals simultaneously while minimizing total cost. The action costs are hand-assigned to stand for execution time in seconds. This setup lets the planner discover and exploit positive interactions between goals, eliminating redundant trips and actions that a myopic one-task-at-a-time approach would take.

What would settle it

Run the two plan types in VirtualHome with real action durations measured from execution, compare wall-clock time for myopic versus joint-goal plans on the same initial states and task sequences; if the 31% reduction does not appear, the result is an artifact of the cost assignment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that treating LLM-anticipated tasks as joint goals for a classical planner produces shorter, cheaper action sequences than planning each task independently. In their experiments, the authors prompt an LLM (GPT-4, with optional contextual examples) with a partial routine of about twenty high-level household tasks, ask it to predict the next one to six tasks, translate those predictions into PDDL goal literals, and let the Fast Downward planner compute a single plan that accomplishes all goals at once. Averaged over paired trials with identical initial states and task sequences, planning for six anticipated tasks cut execution cost by roughly 31% and plan length by about 12% relative to the myopic baseline. This is the evidence for the claim; the speedup comes from the planner interleaving subactions that serve multiple goals, such as fetching breakfast ingredients while already fetching milk for coffee.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed speedup treats the planner's total hand-assigned action cost as execution time, and the resulting plans are not actually run in the simulator to measure elapsed seconds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Anticipating six tasks instead of zero cuts execution cost by about 31% and plan length by about 12% in the paper's paired trials.
  • With contextual examples, GPT-4 anticipates task order perfectly in the paper's 500 experiments (KRCC 1.0, miss ratio 0.0006), well above the Markovian baseline.
  • The gain is not limited to one planner configuration: all three Fast Downward configurations (AT1, AT2, LAMA) show lower plan length and mostly lower execution cost with more anticipated tasks.
  • When a plan is interrupted by a new user prompt, the framework can revise the anticipated routine and replan, undo reversible actions, and proceed with the new tasks.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 31% figure is a planner-cost reduction; whether it translates into a real-time 31% speedup on a robot depends on how faithfully the hand-assigned action costs reflect physical execution durations, which the paper does not measure.
  • The benefit of joint-goal planning likely grows with overlap between tasks (shared objects, locations, and subactions); a direct test would run paired trials with controlled amounts of task overlap.
  • Because the LLM only outputs tasks from the fixed set in the prompt, the approach inherits that set's coverage and silently ignores off-list tasks; a fallback mechanism would be needed for truly novel requests.
  • The one-prompt adaptation to schedule constraints (e.g., an urgent morning meeting) suggests the same machinery could personalise anticipation from a user's past routines, but that extension is beyond the paper's experiments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework that combines LLM-based high-level task anticipation with classical PDDL planning for household robot tasks. Given a partially specified routine of high-level tasks, an LLM (e.g., GPT-4) predicts likely future tasks; these anticipated tasks are then encoded as joint goals for the Fast Downward planner, which computes a fine-grained action sequence that achieves all goals together. The authors evaluate task-anticipation accuracy of several LLMs against a Markov baseline, and they evaluate planning efficiency by comparing plan length and plan cost ('execution time') under myopic versus multi-task joint planning. They report a 31% reduction in execution time and a 12% reduction in plan length when six tasks are anticipated, concluding that anticipating future tasks and planning jointly improves efficiency. The paper also includes a qualitative demonstration of replanning after user interruptions (H4).

Significance. If the reported efficiency gains held up under real execution, the idea of using LLMs for high-level anticipation and classical planners for fine-grained joint execution would be a practical and timely contribution. The framework is lightweight in that it uses off-the-shelf LLMs and a standard planner with no fitted parameters, and the anticipation evaluation (H1/H2) is reasonably thorough, with multiple LLMs, multiple metrics, and a baseline. The pairing of trials and the use of ratios in Figure 7 are appropriate ways to handle varied initial states. However, the central quantitative claim about execution-time reduction is currently not well supported because it rests on hand-assigned action costs rather than measured execution times, and the headline improvement is taken from a single planner configuration while other configurations show much smaller gains. The plan-length reduction is a real cost-free quantity, but it is also smaller and less consistent across planner configurations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV-B2, Table IV, Figure 7] The headline 31% execution-time reduction is not a measured execution time. The paper states that 'Since the cost of the actions (in the domain description) was based on the execution time, we used the total cost of any executed plan as the execution time (in seconds) of the plan,' but the action costs are hand-assigned (e.g., dusting is assigned a fixed cost of 10 in Figure 3) with no validation against VirtualHome's actual action durations or any other source. The plans are never executed in VirtualHome for the H3 experiments. Consequently, the reported 31% reduction is a property of the chosen cost weights; different but equally plausible relative costs for movement versus manipulation actions could change or eliminate the observed reduction. The plan-length reduction is robust to cost choices, but it is not the headline claim. Please either run the plans in VirtualHome to obtain real execution times, or explicitly reframe the claim as a reduction in total plan cost rather than execution time.
  2. [Section IV-B2, paragraph on search time limits] The experimental setup introduces a confound: 'As the number of anticipated tasks increased, the search time limit provided to the planner was increased by units of 30 seconds.' This means the planner had more time to find lower-cost plans in the multi-task conditions, so the observed cost reduction could be due to additional search time rather than to the joint consideration of goals. To support the claim that anticipation and joint planning cause the improvement, the myopic baseline should be run with the same increased search time budgets, or the search time limit should be held constant across conditions. Without this control, the 31% reduction cannot be attributed to the proposed mechanism.
  3. [Table IV and Figure 7] The reported 31% execution-time reduction and 12% plan-length reduction are taken from the seq-sat-fd-autotune-1 configuration only, as stated for Figure 7. Table IV shows that the other two planner configurations exhibit substantially smaller improvements: for LAMA, plan execution cost decreases from 1835 to 1599 (about 13%) and plan length from 65.7 to 61.2 (about 6.8%); for AT-2 the corresponding reductions are about 25% and 10%. Presenting the best configuration's numbers as the paper's headline result in the abstract and introduction is misleading. Please report results for all configurations (or an aggregate with variance) and avoid cherry-picking the most favorable configuration.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III-B] There is a typo in the equation for total cost: 'aciton' should be 'action'.
  2. [Section IV-A.1] The phrase 'during training or execution' is confusing because the LLM is not trained in this work; consider 'during prompting or execution'.
  3. [Section IV-B.2, LAMA row] For the LAMA configuration, the execution time for 3 anticipated tasks (1613) is very close to that for 6 anticipated tasks (1599), and the reduction from myopic is far smaller than for AT-1. This pattern deserves discussion, as it suggests the benefit of anticipation is configuration-dependent.
  4. [Section IV-B.3] The evaluation of H4 is qualitative and does not report any quantitative metrics or confirmation that the plan was actually executed in VirtualHome. If this is intended as a demonstration, please state explicitly that it is illustrative rather than a full experimental validation.
  5. [Section IV-B.2, paragraph on positive interaction] The sentence 'positive interaction between goals was unlikely in our experiments' is difficult to reconcile with the observed reduction in plan length, since interleaving actions across goals is itself a form of positive interaction. Please clarify what kind of interaction is meant and how it relates to the observed results.
  6. [General] No error bars, standard deviations, or significance tests are reported for the 10 repetitions in Table IV and Figure 7. Adding these would help the reader assess the reliability of the claimed reductions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the joint-planning cost reduction is a direct planner output, not a fitted or self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The paper's core quantitative claim (31% execution-time reduction, 12% plan-length reduction) is obtained by running a classical planner (Fast Downward) on jointly conjoined PDDL goals and comparing the resulting additive plan cost with a myopic baseline. No parameter is fitted to the reported outcome; the LLM anticipation is evaluated against held-out routines with a Markov baseline, and the planner minimizes a standard nonnegative action-cost objective. The only definitional shortcut is that 'execution time' is identified with total PDDL plan cost ('Since the cost of the actions (in the domain description) was based on the execution time, we used the total cost of any executed plan as the execution time (in seconds) of the plan'). This is a transparent modeling choice about how time is represented, not an instance of an output being equivalent to an input by construction: the reduction is a consequence of jointly optimizing shared subgoals, and it would still be a (possibly different) reduction under other cost weights. The absence of actual VirtualHome execution affects external validity, not circularity. Self-citations (e.g., REBA [31]) are not load-bearing, and no uniqueness theorem or fitted ansatz is imported. Therefore no circular step meets the evidentiary standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity of hand-assigned PDDL action costs as a proxy for execution time, the closed-task-set assumption, and the realism of VirtualHome. No fitted parameters are used in the anticipation or planning pipeline, and the planner minimizes a standard additive cost. The absence of code, PDDL files, and exact prompts limits independent checking. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • PDDL action costs (33 actions) = not reported
    Hand-assigned by the authors to approximate seconds per action; the reported execution time is the sum of these costs, so the 31% reduction depends directly on these arbitrary values.
  • Search time limit increments (30 seconds per additional anticipated task) = 30 s per task
    Chosen by the authors for the planning experiments; larger search budgets for larger goal sets could affect plan quality, although reported results focus on execution cost rather than search time.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption PDDL/STRIPS planning semantics are a valid model for household action execution.
    The paper encodes household tasks as deterministic, discrete actions with additive costs, ignoring continuous dynamics and non-determinism (Section III-B).
  • domain assumption Action costs in the PDDL domain correspond to real execution times.
    Used to equate total plan cost with execution time in Section IV-B2; no calibration against VirtualHome execution is provided.
  • domain assumption The closed set T of high-level tasks is sufficient for the evaluated scenarios.
    Tasks outside T are ignored, and the paper states handling such tasks is beyond its scope (Section IV-A.1).
  • domain assumption VirtualHome is a realistic proxy for household environments.
    Evaluation is entirely within VirtualHome; no physical robot trials are run.
  • domain assumption LLM outputs for high-level tasks can be unambiguously mapped to PDDL goal literals in the closed task set.
    The framework maps each anticipated task to ground literals; the paper provides no error analysis for mapping failures (Section III-A, Figure 2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anticipate & Act : Integrating LLMs and Classical Planning for Efficient Task Execution in Household Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z32PWZQF

@misc{pith2026250202066,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anticipate & Act : Integrating LLMs and Classical Planning for Efficient Task Execution in Household Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z32PWZQF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02066}
}
read the original abstract

Assistive agents performing household tasks such as making the bed or cooking breakfast often compute and execute actions that accomplish one task at a time. However, efficiency can be improved by anticipating upcoming tasks and computing an action sequence that jointly achieves these tasks. State-of-the-art methods for task anticipation use data-driven deep networks and Large Language Models (LLMs), but they do so at the level of high-level tasks and/or require many training examples. Our framework leverages the generic knowledge of LLMs through a small number of prompts to perform high-level task anticipation, using the anticipated tasks as goals in a classical planning system to compute a sequence of finer-granularity actions that jointly achieve these goals. We ground and evaluate our framework's abilities in realistic scenarios in the VirtualHome environment and demonstrate a 31% reduction in execution time compared with a system that does not consider upcoming tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02066 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Anticipation example: (a) Agent individually moves the milk and then the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our framework’s pipeline: (a) user inputs prompts with sequences of household tasks to an LLM, which then predicts high-level tasks over a time horizon; (b) the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Action for Dusting the object o at some location l. Our choice of using the LLMs to model and predict sequences of high-level tasks is motivated by two objectives: (i) exploiting the complementary strengths of generic LLMs and domain-specific knowledge-based planning methods; and (ii) leveraging the capabilities of an LLM with limited examples of routines of interest. As described in Section IV￾A, we explored the us… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example plans produced with and without considering anticipated tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: LLM prompting example. A. Experimental Setup We first describe the setup process we followed to exper￾imentally evaluate the hypotheses. 1) Prompting LLMs and Planning: We created a dataset T of high-level tasks in the household environment. These tasks belong to activ…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An illustrative use case that involved an interruption during the execution of a plan computed to jointly accomplish some anticipated tasks; the agent was able to revise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Plan execution time and plan length with the number of anticipated tasks ranging [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anticipation in human-robot cooperation: A recurrent neural network approach for multiple action sequences prediction,

    P. Schydlo, M. Rakovic, L. Jamone, and J. Santos-Victor, “Anticipation in human-robot cooperation: A recurrent neural network approach for multiple action sequences prediction,” in IEEE International Confer- ence on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2018, pp. 5909–5914

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Anticipatory Planning: Improving Long-Lived Planning by Estimating Expected Cost of Future Tasks,

    R. Dhakal, M. R. H. Talukder, and G. J. Stein, “Anticipatory Planning: Improving Long-Lived Planning by Estimating Expected Cost of Future Tasks,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, London, UK, 2023, pp. 11 538–11 545

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models,

    W. Huang, F. Xia, T. Xiao, H. Chan, J. Liang, P. Florence, A. Zeng, J. Tompson, I. Mordatch, Y . Chebotar, P. Sermanet, T. Jackson, N. Brown, L. Luu, S. Levine, K. Hausman, and b. ichter, “Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models,” in International Conference on Robot Learning , 14–18 Dec 2023, pp. 1769–1782

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Task and motion planning with large language models for object rearrangement,

    Y . Ding, X. Zhang, C. Paxton, and S. Zhang, “Task and motion planning with large language models for object rearrangement,” 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Text2motion: From natural language instructions to feasible plans,

    K. Lin, C. Agia, T. Migimatsu, M. Pavone, and J. Bohg, “Text2motion: From natural language instructions to feasible plans,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12153, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Pddl - the planning domain definition language,

    M. Ghallab, C. Knoblock, D. Wilkins, A. Barrett, D. Christianson, M. Friedman, C. Kwok, K. Golden, S. Penberthy, D. Smith, Y . Sun, and D. Weld, “Pddl - the planning domain definition language,” 08 1998

    1998

  7. [7]

    The fast downward planning system,

    M. Helmert, “The fast downward planning system,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research , vol. 26, pp. 191–246, jul 2006. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1613%2Fjair.1705

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Virtualhome: Simulating household activities via programs,

    X. Puig, K. Ra, M. Boben, J. Li, T. Wang, S. Fidler, and A. Torralba, “Virtualhome: Simulating household activities via programs,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2018, pp. 8494–8502

    work page 2018

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    OpenAI, “Gpt-4 technical report,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2303.08774,

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways,

    A. Chowdhery, S. Narang, J. Devlin, M. Bosma, G. Mishra, A. Roberts, P. Barham, H. W. Chung, C. Sutton, S. Gehrmann, P. Schuh, K. Shi, S. Tsvyashchenko, J. Maynez, A. Rao, P. Barnes, Y . Tay, N. Shazeer, V . Prabhakaran, E. Reif, N. Du, B. Hutchinson, R. Pope, J. Bradbury, J. ...

    2022

  3. [11]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,

    H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacard, X. Martinet, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lacroix, B. Rozire, N. Goyal, E. Hambro, F. Azhar, A. Rodriguez, A. Joulin, E. Grave, and G. Lample, “Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,” 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models,

    W. Huang, F. Xia, T. Xiao, H. Chan, J. Liang, P. Florence, A. Zeng, J. Tompson, I. Mordatch, Y . Chebotar, P. Sermanet, N. Brown, T. Jack- son, L. Luu, S. Levine, K. Hausman, and B. Ichter, “Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models,” 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Skill induction and planning with latent language,

    P. Sharma, A. Torralba, and J. Andreas, “Skill induction and planning with latent language,” in Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Dublin, Ireland: Association for Computational Linguistics, May 2022, pp. 1713–1726. [Online...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances,

    M. Ahn, A. Brohan, N. Brown, Y . Chebotar, O. Cortes, B. David, C. Finn, K. Gopalakrishnan, K. Hausman, A. Herzog, D. Ho, J. Hsu, J. Ibarz, B. Ichter, A. Irpan, E. Jang, R. J. Ruano, K. Jeffrey, S. Jesmonth, N. J. Joshi, R. C. Julian, D. Kalashnikov, Y . Kuang, K.- H. Lee, S. ...

    2022

  7. [15]

    Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents,

    W. Huang, P. Abbeel, D. Pathak, and I. Mordatch, “Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents,” International Conference on Machine Learning . [Online]. Available: https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10366294

  8. [16]

    Swiftsage: A generative agent with fast and slow thinking for complex interactive tasks,

    B. Y . Lin, Y . Fu, K. Yang, P. Ammanabrolu, F. Brahman, S. Huang, C. Bhagavatula, Y . Choi, and X. Ren, “Swiftsage: A generative agent with fast and slow thinking for complex interactive tasks,” ArXiv preprint , vol. abs/2305.17390, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.or...

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Planning with large language models via corrective re-prompting,

    S. S. Raman, V . Cohen, E. Rosen, I. Idrees, D. Paulius, and S. Tellex, “Planning with large language models via corrective re-prompting,” 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Generalized planning in pddl domains with pretrained large language models,

    T. Silver, S. Dan, K. Srinivas, J. B. Tenenbaum, L. P. Kaelbling, and M. Katz, “Generalized planning in pddl domains with pretrained large language models,” 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Tidybot: Personalized robot assistance with large language models,

    J. Wu, R. Antonova, A. Kan, M. Lepert, A. Zeng, S. Song, J. Bohg, S. Rusinkiewicz, and T. Funkhouser, “Tidybot: Personalized robot assistance with large language models,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Progprompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large language models,

    I. Singh, V . Blukis, A. Mousavian, A. Goyal, D. Xu, J. Tremblay, D. Fox, J. Thomason, and A. Garg, “Progprompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large language models,” in 2023 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2023, pp. 11 523–11 530

    2023

  13. [21]

    V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models,

    W. Huang, C. Wang, R. Zhang, Y . Li, J. Wu, and L. Fei-Fei, “V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05973 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Structured, flexible, and robust: benchmarking and improving large language models towards more human-like behavior in out-of- distribution reasoning tasks,

    K. M. Collins, C. Wong, J. Feng, M. Wei, and J. B. Tenen- baum, “Structured, flexible, and robust: benchmarking and improving large language models towards more human-like behavior in out-of- distribution reasoning tasks,” 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Large language models still can’t plan (a benchmark for llms on planning and reasoning about change),

    K. Valmeekam, A. Olmo, S. Sreedharan, and S. Kambhampati, “Large language models still can’t plan (a benchmark for llms on planning and reasoning about change),” 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Antgpt: Can large language models help long-term action anticipation from videos?

    Q. Zhao, C. Zhang, S. Wang, C. Fu, N. Agarwal, K. Lee, and C. Sun, “Antgpt: Can large language models help long-term action anticipation from videos?” 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    PDDL planning with pretrained large language models,

    T. Silver, V . Hariprasad, R. S. Shuttleworth, N. Kumar, T. Lozano- P´erez, and L. P. Kaelbling, “PDDL planning with pretrained large language models,” in NeurIPS Workshop on Foundation Models for Decision Making , 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //openreview.net/forum?id=1QMMUB4zfl

    2022

  18. [26]

    Llm+p: Empowering large language models with optimal planning proficiency,

    B. Liu, Y . Jiang, X. Zhang, Q. Liu, S. Zhang, J. Biswas, and P. Stone, “Llm+p: Empowering large language models with optimal planning proficiency,” 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Translating natural language to planning goals with large-language models,

    Y . Xie, C. Yu, T. Zhu, J. Bai, Z. Gong, and H. Soh, “Translating natural language to planning goals with large-language models,” 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Language models are few-shot learners,

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, S. Agarwal, A. Herbert-V oss, G. Krueger, T. Henighan, R. Child, A. Ramesh, D. Ziegler, J. Wu, C. Winter, C. Hesse, M. Chen, E. Sigler, M. Litwin, S. Gray, B. Ch...

    2020

  21. [29]

    Strips: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving,

    R. E. Fikes and N. J. Nilsson, “Strips: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 189–208, 1971. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004370271900105

    1971

  22. [30]

    An empirical analysis of some heuristic features for planning through local search and action graphs,

    A. Gerevini, A. Saetti, and I. Serina, “An empirical analysis of some heuristic features for planning through local search and action graphs,” Fundamental Information, vol. 107, no. 2-3, pp. 167–197, 2011

    2011

  23. [31]

    REBA: A Refinement-Based Architecture for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning in Robotics,

    M. Sridharan, M. Gelfond, S. Zhang, and J. Wyatt, “REBA: A Refinement-Based Architecture for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning in Robotics,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research , vol. 65, pp. 87–180, May 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    The treatment of ties in ranking problems,

    M. G. Kendall, “The treatment of ties in ranking problems,” Biometrika, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 239–251, 1945. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2332303

    1945

  25. [2023]

    Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 257532815

    [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 257532815

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.