David Porfirio

h-index7
2papers
209citations

2 Papers

26.6HCFeb 25, 2025
VeriPlan: Integrating Formal Verification and LLMs into End-User Planning

Christine Lee, David Porfirio, Xinyu Jessica Wang et al.

Automated planning is traditionally the domain of experts, utilized in fields like manufacturing and healthcare with the aid of expert planning tools. Recent advancements in LLMs have made planning more accessible to everyday users due to their potential to assist users with complex planning tasks. However, LLMs face several application challenges within end-user planning, including consistency, accuracy, and user trust issues. This paper introduces VeriPlan, a system that applies formal verification techniques, specifically model checking, to enhance the reliability and flexibility of LLMs for end-user planning. In addition to the LLM planner, VeriPlan includes three additional core features -- a rule translator, flexibility sliders, and a model checker -- that engage users in the verification process. Through a user study (n=12), we evaluate VeriPlan, demonstrating improvements in the perceived quality, usability, and user satisfaction of LLMs. Our work shows the effective integration of formal verification and user-control features with LLMs for end-user planning tasks.

5.8AIJun 27, 2025
Bootstrapping Human-Like Planning via LLMs

David Porfirio, Vincent Hsiao, Morgan Fine-Morris et al.

Robot end users increasingly require accessible means of specifying tasks for robots to perform. Two common end-user programming paradigms include drag-and-drop interfaces and natural language programming. Although natural language interfaces harness an intuitive form of human communication, drag-and-drop interfaces enable users to meticulously and precisely dictate the key actions of the robot's task. In this paper, we investigate the degree to which both approaches can be combined. Specifically, we construct a large language model (LLM)-based pipeline that accepts natural language as input and produces human-like action sequences as output, specified at a level of granularity that a human would produce. We then compare these generated action sequences to another dataset of hand-specified action sequences. Although our results reveal that larger models tend to outperform smaller ones in the production of human-like action sequences, smaller models nonetheless achieve satisfactory performance.