pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.07707 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-08 · 💻 cs.AI

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Hierarchical Task Network Planning with LLM-Generated Heuristics

Alexandre Buchweitz, Andr\'e Grahl Pereira, Augusto B. Corr\^ea, Felipe Meneguzzi, Victor Scherer Putrich

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 01:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI
keywords hierarchical task network planninglarge language modelssearch heuristicsautomated planningbenchmark domains
0
0 comments X

The pith

LLM-generated heuristics for HTN planning nearly match the coverage of the top specialized planner while cutting search effort on 83 percent of problems.

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

The paper examines whether large language models can produce effective search heuristics for hierarchical task network planning by prompting them with domain details. It tests this approach on six standard total-order HTN benchmarks using the Pytrich planner and measures performance against domain-independent baselines plus the PANDA planner. A sympathetic reader would care because such heuristics could let planners handle complex hierarchical problems with far less hand-engineered knowledge and lower computational cost. Results indicate the LLM versions reach nearly the same number of solved problems as the strongest existing system while speeding up search in most cases.

Core claim

LLM-generated heuristics nearly match the coverage of the best available HTN planner, while substantially reducing search effort on 83% of shared problems.

What carries the argument

Domain-specific prompting of LLMs to generate heuristics that guide task decomposition and search in the Pytrich HTN planner.

Load-bearing premise

That prompting LLMs with domain information produces genuinely useful heuristics that generalize beyond the six tested benchmarks rather than overfitting to them.

What would settle it

Running the same LLM-generated heuristics on new HTN domains outside the original six and finding that coverage drops below PANDA levels or search effort increases on most problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.07707 by Alexandre Buchweitz, Andr\'e Grahl Pereira, Augusto B. Corr\^ea, Felipe Meneguzzi, Victor Scherer Putrich.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of LLM and PANDA RCFF on search efficiency and algorithm effects: (a) per-problem expanded nodes (scatter), (b) cumulative coverage versus node-expansion budget (cactus plot), and (c) median expanded nodes by search algorithm for each LLM model. In (a), points below the diagonal indicate an LLM advantage. 5.2 Search Efficiency and Plan Quality On the 125 problems solved by both the LLM virtual b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Coverage results for LLM vs. PANDA RCFF: per-domain bar chart (a) and per-model heatmap (b). E.2 PANDA RCLMCut This subsection mirrors the RCFF comparison for completeness. Since PANDA RCLMCut solves fewer problems than PANDA RCFF, the shared instance set is smaller in several domains. E.3 Plan Length by Domain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Win/loss breakdown by domain: LLM vs. PANDA RCFF on expanded nodes (a) and solution size (b). Each bar segment counts shared instances where LLM expands fewer (win), equal (tie), or more (loss) nodes or actions. Barman-BDI Blocksworld-GTOHP Depots Robot Rover-GTOHP Towers Domain 0 20 40 60 80 Average Improvement (%) Average Improvement: LLM over Panda (rc2ff) (when LLM wins) Expanded Nodes Solution Size (a… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Search efficiency detail: LLM vs. PANDA RCFF. Panel (a) shows mean improvement on LLM wins; panel (b) shows the full distribution of node counts per domain. so differences in plan length across planners with different internal search strategies are unsurprising (see also Section 5.2). E.4 Median Expanded Nodes by Model and Algorithm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Model ranking and cumulative coverage: LLM vs. PANDA RCFF. Panel (a) compares median search effort per LLM model against the two PANDA variants; panel (b) shows how coverage accumulates as the node budget grows. 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 Panda (rc2lmc) Expanded Nodes 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 LLM Expanded Nodes Expanded Nodes: LLM vs Panda (rc2lmc) (Below diagonal = LLM better) Barman-BDI Blockswor… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Per-problem scatter plots: LLM vs. PANDA RCLMCut on expanded nodes (a) and solution size (b). Points below the diagonal indicate LLM advantage. Model interface. The Model object exposes grounded planning objects including facts, operators, abstract_tasks, decompositions, and the goal bitset goals. Node interface. Each HTNNode provides: • node.state: integer bitset encoding the current state; • node.task_ne… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Coverage and search-efficiency summary: LLM vs. PA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Per-problem scatter plots: LLM vs. TDG on expanded nodes (a) and solution size (b). Points below the diagonal indicate LLM advantage. Barman-BDI Blocksworld-GTOHP Depots Robot Rover-GTOHP Towers Domain 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Problems Solved 18 23 23 11 27 15 20 30 27 12 27 15 Coverage: Problems Solved per Domain Pytrich (TDG) LLM (any model) (a) Coverage by domain. LLM covers 131 problems; TDG covers only 117,… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Coverage and search-efficiency summary: LLM vs. TDG. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

HTN planning is a variation of classical planning where, instead of searching for a linear sequence of actions, an algorithm decomposes higher-level tasks using a method library until only executable actions remain. On one hand, this allows one to introduce domain knowledge that can speed up the search for a solution through the method library. On the other hand, it creates challenges that go beyond those of classical state-space search. While recent research produced a number of heuristics and novel algorithms that speed up HTN planning, these heuristics are not yet as informative as those available in classical planning algorithms. We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can generate effective search heuristics for HTN planning, extending the methodology of Corr\^ea, Pereira, and Seipp (2025) from classical to hierarchical planning. Using the Pytrich planner on six standard total-order HTN benchmark domains, we evaluate heuristics generated by nine LLMs under domain-specific prompting and compare them against the TDG and LMCount domain-independent baselines and the PANDA planner. Our results show that LLM-generated heuristics nearly match the coverage of the best available HTN planner, while substantially reducing search effort on 83% of shared problems.

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 paper extends LLM-based heuristic generation from classical planning to Hierarchical Task Network (HTN) planning. It uses domain-specific prompting with nine LLMs to produce heuristics for the Pytrich planner, evaluated on six standard total-order HTN benchmark domains. These are compared against domain-independent baselines (TDG, LMCount) and the state-of-the-art PANDA planner. The central empirical claim is that LLM heuristics nearly match PANDA's coverage while reducing search effort on 83% of shared problems.

Significance. If the results prove robust, this would be a meaningful contribution by showing that LLMs can produce informative, domain-aware heuristics for HTN planning—an area where heuristic quality has lagged behind classical planning. The work provides a direct empirical head-to-head on fixed benchmarks against independent baselines and extends a prior methodology, offering a practical path to more efficient hierarchical planning without hand-crafted heuristics.

major comments (2)
  1. [Experimental setup] Experimental setup (likely §4 or §5): No exact prompting templates, no ablation removing method-library or task-decomposition details from prompts, and no evaluation on held-out domains are reported. This directly undermines the claim that the heuristics are 'genuinely useful and generalizable' rather than benefiting from benchmark leakage, which is load-bearing for the coverage and effort-reduction results.
  2. [Results] Results section: The 83% effort-reduction figure and 'nearly match PANDA coverage' claim are presented without per-domain breakdowns, variance measures, statistical tests, or definition of the effort metric (nodes expanded, time, etc.). Without these, it is impossible to verify whether improvements are consistent or concentrated in a subset of the six domains.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The abstract and introduction could more explicitly state the precise differences from Corrêa et al. (2025) in the prompting and HTN-specific adaptations.
  2. [Methods] The nine LLMs are mentioned but not identified by version, size, or access method; adding this would improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our methodology and strengthen the presentation of results. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Experimental setup] Experimental setup (likely §4 or §5): No exact prompting templates, no ablation removing method-library or task-decomposition details from prompts, and no evaluation on held-out domains are reported. This directly undermines the claim that the heuristics are 'genuinely useful and generalizable' rather than benefiting from benchmark leakage, which is load-bearing for the coverage and effort-reduction results.

    Authors: We agree that exact prompting templates are essential for reproducibility and will add them verbatim to an appendix in the revised manuscript. Our domain-specific prompts are intentionally constructed to include method-library and task-decomposition information because these elements are core to HTN planning; we will expand the methodology section to explain this design rationale and contrast it with the domain-independent baselines (TDG and LMCount). We did not perform explicit ablations in the current study, but the consistent outperformance over those baselines provides indirect evidence of the value of the hierarchical details. For held-out domains, the six benchmarks are the established standard set in the HTN literature and exhibit diversity in structure and size; we will add an explicit discussion of potential benchmark leakage risks and list evaluation on held-out domains as future work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] Results section: The 83% effort-reduction figure and 'nearly match PANDA coverage' claim are presented without per-domain breakdowns, variance measures, statistical tests, or definition of the effort metric (nodes expanded, time, etc.). Without these, it is impossible to verify whether improvements are consistent or concentrated in a subset of the six domains.

    Authors: We apologize for the insufficient detail in the original presentation. The effort metric is the number of nodes expanded (with runtime reported as a secondary measure). In the revised results section we will (1) explicitly define the metric, (2) add a table with per-domain coverage and effort-reduction percentages, (3) report variance (standard deviation across problems within each domain), and (4) include statistical significance tests (Wilcoxon signed-rank tests) comparing LLM heuristics against the baselines. These additions will show that the aggregate 83% figure is not driven by a small subset of domains. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minor self-citation to prior methodology extension; results remain independent empirical evaluation

full rationale

The paper extends the prompting methodology from Corrêa, Pereira, and Seipp (2025) (with author overlap) to HTN planning but makes no load-bearing use of that citation for its central claims. Instead, it reports new head-to-head coverage and search-effort results on six fixed total-order HTN benchmarks against independent baselines (TDG, LMCount, PANDA). No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions reduce to inputs by construction; the evaluation is falsifiable via the stated metrics on standard domains. This qualifies as one minor self-citation that is not load-bearing, yielding a low circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Empirical evaluation paper; central claim rests on standard planning assumptions and LLM capabilities rather than new axioms or fitted parameters.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Total-order HTN planning benchmarks are representative of practical hierarchical planning problems
    Invoked when generalizing results from the six standard domains to broader HTN use.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5526 in / 1032 out tokens · 34031 ms · 2026-05-11T01:49:41.166014+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Behnke, D

    G. Behnke, D. Höller, and P. Bercher, editors.Proceedings of the 10th International Planning Competition: Planner and Domain Abstracts – Hierarchical Task Network (HTN) Planning Track (IPC 2020), 2021

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Bercher, S

    P. Bercher, S. Keen, and S. Biundo. Hybrid planning heuristics based on task decomposition graphs. In S. Edelkamp and R. Barták, editors,Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Symposium on Combinatorial Search (SOCS), pages 35–43. AAAI Press, 2014. doi: 10.1609/SOCS.V5I1. 18323

    work page doi:10.1609/socs.v5i1 2014

  3. [3]

    Bercher, G

    P. Bercher, G. Behnke, D. Höller, and S. Biundo. An admissible HTN planning heuristic. InProceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 4384–4390. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 2017. ISBN 9780999241103. doi: 10.24963/ijcai.2017/68

    work page doi:10.24963/ijcai.2017/68 2017

  4. [4]

    2022/168

    P. Bercher, R. Alford, and D. Höller. A survey on hierarchical planning: One abstract idea, many concrete realizations. InProceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2019), pages 6267–6275. ijcai.org, 2019. doi: 10.24963/IJCAI. 2019/875

    work page doi:10.24963/ijcai 2019

  5. [5]

    A. B. Corrêa, A. G. Pereira, and J. Seipp. Classical planning with LLM-generated heuristics: Challenging the state of the art with Python code. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38. Curran Associates, Inc., 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id= UCV21BsuqA

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    K. Erol, J. Hendler, and D. S. Nau. HTN planning: Complexity and expressivity. InProceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 2, pages 1123–1128. AAAI Press/MIT Press, 1994. URL http://www.aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/1994/AAAI94-173. pdf

    work page 1994

  7. [7]

    Ghallab, D

    M. Ghallab, D. Nau, and P. Traverso.Automated Planning: Theory and Practice. Elsevier, 2004

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Grand, H

    M. Grand, H. Fiorino, and D. Pellier. An accurate HDDL domain learning algorithm from partial and noisy observations. InProceedings of the Workshop on Knowledge Engineering for Planning and Scheduling (KEPS@ICAPS), 2022

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Helmert and C

    M. Helmert and C. Domshlak. Landmarks, critical paths and abstractions: What’s the difference anyway? InProceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS 2009), pages 162–169. AAAI Press, 2009

    work page 2009

  10. [10]

    Hoffmann and B

    J. Hoffmann and B. Nebel. The FF planning system: Fast plan generation through heuristic search.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 14:253–302, 2001. doi: 10.1613/jair.855

    work page doi:10.1613/jair.855 2001

  11. [11]

    Höller and P

    D. Höller and P. Bercher. Landmark generation in HTN planning. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2021

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Höller, P

    D. Höller, P. Bercher, G. Behnke, and S. Biundo. On guiding search in htn planning with classical planning heuristics. InProceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2019. doi: 10.24963/ijcai.2019/857. URL https://www.ijcai.org/ Proceedings/2019/0857.pdf. 10

    work page doi:10.24963/ijcai.2019/857 2019

  13. [13]

    Höller, G

    D. Höller, G. Behnke, P. Bercher, S. Biundo, H. Fiorino, D. Pellier, and R. Alford. HDDL: An extension to PDDL for expressing hierarchical planning problems. InProceedings of the Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 9883–9891, 2020. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v34i06.6542

    work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i06.6542 2020

  14. [14]

    Höller, P

    D. Höller, P. Bercher, and G. Behnke. Delete- and ordering-relaxation heuristics for htn planning. InInternational Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2020. doi: 10.24963/ijcai.2020/564. URLhttps://dblp.org/rec/conf/ijcai/HollerBB20

    work page doi:10.24963/ijcai.2020/564 2020

  15. [15]

    Höller, P

    D. Höller, P. Bercher, G. Behnke, and S. Biundo. HTN planning as heuristic progression search. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 67:835–880, 2020. doi: 10.1613/jair.1.11282. URL http://jair.org/index.php/jair/article/view/11282

    work page doi:10.1613/jair.1.11282 2020

  16. [16]

    R. Li, D. Nau, M. Roberts, and M. Fine-Morris. Automatically learning HTN methods from landmarks. InProceedings of the Thirty-Seventh International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, 2024

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    M. C. Magnaguagno and F. Meneguzzi. Method Composition through Operator Pattern Identi- fication. InProceedings of the 2017 Workshop on Knowledge Engineering for Planning and Scheduling (KEPS@ICAPS). AAAI Press, 2017

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    M. C. Magnaguagno, F. Meneguzzi, and L. de Silva. HyperTensioN and total-order forward decomposition optimizations.Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 39, 2025. doi: 10.1007/s10458-025-09693-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s10458-025-09693-w 2025

  19. [19]

    Muñoz-Avila, D

    H. Muñoz-Avila, D. W. Aha, and P. Rizzo. ChatHTN: Interleaving approximate (LLM) and symbolic HTN planning. In G. J. Pappas, P. Ravikumar, and S. A. Seshia, editors,International Conference on Neuro-symbolic Systems, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 446–458. PMLR, 2025. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v288/munoz-avila25a. html

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Oswald, K

    J. Oswald, K. Srinivas, H. Kokel, J. Lee, M. Katz, and S. Sohrabi. Large language models as planning domain generators (student abstract). InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 23604–23605, Mar. 2024. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v38i21.30491

    work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i21.30491 2024

  21. [21]

    V . S. Putrich, F. Meneguzzi, and A. G. Pereira. Landmark generation in HTN planning revisited. InProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, vol- ume 35, pages 228–235. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI),

    work page

  22. [22]

    doi: 10.1609/icaps.v35i1.36123

    work page doi:10.1609/icaps.v35i1.36123

  23. [23]

    Tuisov, Y

    A. Tuisov, Y . Vernik, and A. Shleyfman. LLM-generated heuristics for AI planning: Do we even need domain-independence anymore? arXiv:2501.18784 [cs.AI], 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    chinchilla optimal

    K. Valmeekam, M. Marquez, S. Sreedharan, and S. Kambhampati. On the planning abilities of large language models – a critical investigation.arXiv, May 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2305. 15771

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Xu and H

    Y . Xu and H. Munoz-Avila. Online learning of HTN methods for integrated LLM-HTN planning. InProceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference on Advances in Cognitive Systems, 2025

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Yousefi, M

    M. Yousefi, M. Schmautz, P. Haslum, and P. Bercher. How good is perfect? on the incom- pleteness of A* for total-order HTN planning. InProceedings of the Thirty-Fifth International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, ICAPS ’25, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia,

    work page

  27. [27]

    ISBN 1-57735-903-8

    AAAI Press. ISBN 1-57735-903-8. doi: 10.1609/icaps.v35i1.36107. 11 A Prompt Templates A.1 Base Prompt Structure The base prompt is a structured document with twelve sections delivered to the LLM for each domain. Sections 1–3 supply domain-specific information; sections 4–12 are fixed across all domains

    work page doi:10.1609/icaps.v35i1.36107

  28. [28]

    Task preamble.States the role (expert in hierarchical planning and heuristic design), the target domain, and the required class name and parameter name for the generated Python class

    work page

  29. [29]

    Domain definition.The full HDDL domain file, presented verbatim in a fenced code block

    work page

  30. [30]

    Training instances.Two benchmark problems: the smallest (used for heuristic selection) and the largest available, both presented verbatim in HDDL format

    work page

  31. [31]

    These insights were discovered through extensive experimentation on this domain. Use them

    Domain-specific hints.Present only when a hint block exists for the domain (see Ap- pendix B). Introduced with the instruction“These insights were discovered through extensive experimentation on this domain. Use them. ” Sections 5–12 are identical across all domains and prompts. Section 5 — Grounded fact format.Explains that after grounding, facts are rep...

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    Guidelines: • The answer [N/A] means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects

    Institutional review board (IRB) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or ...

    work page