Daniel Fišer

Katharina Stein, Daniel Fišer, Jörg Hoffmann et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized a large variety of NLP tasks. An active debate is to what extent they can do reasoning and planning. Prior work has assessed the latter in the specific context of PDDL planning, based on manually converting three PDDL domains into natural language (NL) prompts. Here we automate this conversion step, showing how to leverage an LLM to automatically generate NL prompts from PDDL input. Our automatically generated NL prompts result in similar LLM-planning performance as the previous manually generated ones. Beyond this, the automation enables us to run much larger experiments, providing for the first time a broad evaluation of LLM planning performance in PDDL. Our NL prompts yield better performance than PDDL prompts and simple template-based NL prompts. Compared to symbolic planners, LLM planning lags far behind; but in some domains, our best LLM configuration scales up further than A$^\star$ using LM-cut.

Katharina Stein, Nils Hodel, Daniel Fišer et al.

LLMs have recently been used to generate Python programs representing generalized plans in PDDL planning, i.e., plans that generalize across the tasks of a given PDDL domain. Previous work proposed a framework consisting of three steps: the LLM first generates a summary and then a strategy for the domain, both in natural language, and then implements that strategy as a Python program, that gets debugged on example planning tasks. In that work, only one strategy is generated and passed directly to the program generation. If the strategy is incorrect, its implementation will therefore result in an incorrect generalized plan. Here, we introduce an approach that generates the strategy in the form of pseudocode and enables automatic debugging of the pseudocode, hence allowing us to identify and fix errors prior to the generation of the generalized plan itself. Additionally, we extend the Python debugging phase with a reflection step prompting the LLM to pinpoint the reason for the observed plan failure. Finally, we take inspiration from LLM code generation to produce several program variants and pick the best one. Running experiments on 17 benchmark domains, we show that these extensions substantially improve (and never deteriorate) the quality of the generalized plans. In 12 of the domains, our best Python programs solve all tasks that can be generated with the respective instance generator.