Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Open Grounded Planning: Challenges and Benchmark Construction

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2406.02903 v1 pith:XPP5GUEX submitted 2024-06-05 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords planninggroundedopenllmsapproacheschallengesbenchmarkdomains
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has increasingly drawn attention to the use of LLMs for human-like planning. Existing work on LLM-based planning either focuses on leveraging the inherent language generation capabilities of LLMs to produce free-style plans, or employs reinforcement learning approaches to learn decision-making for a limited set of actions within restricted environments. However, both approaches exhibit significant discrepancies from the open and executable requirements in real-world planning. In this paper, we propose a new planning task--open grounded planning. The primary objective of open grounded planning is to ask the model to generate an executable plan based on a variable action set, thereby ensuring the executability of the produced plan. To this end, we establishes a benchmark for open grounded planning spanning a wide range of domains. Then we test current state-of-the-art LLMs along with five planning approaches, revealing that existing LLMs and methods still struggle to address the challenges posed by grounded planning in open domains. The outcomes of this paper define and establish a foundational dataset for open grounded planning, and shed light on the potential challenges and future directions of LLM-based planning.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Can LLM-Reasoning Models Replace Classical Planning? A Benchmark Study

    cs.RO 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Reasoning-optimized LLMs reach at most 63.4% success across the five PDDL benchmarks, versus 97.9% for Fast Downward, and frequently produce plans that fail during execution.

Pith tools