Francisco Piedrahita Velez

Max Zuo, Francisco Piedrahita Velez, Xiaochen Li et al.

Recent works have explored using language models for planning problems. One approach examines translating natural language descriptions of planning tasks into structured planning languages, such as the planning domain definition language (PDDL). Existing evaluation methods struggle to ensure semantic correctness and rely on simple or unrealistic datasets. To bridge this gap, we introduce \textit{Planetarium}, a benchmark designed to evaluate language models' ability to generate PDDL code from natural language descriptions of planning tasks. \textit{Planetarium} features a novel PDDL equivalence algorithm that flexibly evaluates the correctness of generated PDDL, along with a dataset of 145,918 text-to-PDDL pairs across 73 unique state combinations with varying levels of difficulty. Finally, we evaluate several API-access and open-weight language models that reveal this task's complexity. For example, 96.1\% of the PDDL problem descriptions generated by GPT-4o are syntactically parseable, 94.4\% are solvable, but only 24.8\% are semantically correct, highlighting the need for a more rigorous benchmark for this problem.

Zhuonan Yang, Jacob Xiaochen Li, Francisco Piedrahita Velez et al.

One of the most common complaints about large language models (LLMs) is their prompt sensitivity -- that is, the fact that their ability to perform a task or provide a correct answer to a question can depend unpredictably on the way the question is posed. We investigate this variation by comparing two very different but commonly-used styles of prompting: instruction-based prompts, which describe the task in natural language, and example-based prompts, which provide in-context few-shot demonstration pairs to illustrate the task. We find that, despite large variation in performance as a function of the prompt, the model engages some common underlying mechanisms across different prompts of a task. Specifically, we identify task-specific attention heads whose outputs literally describe the task -- which we dub lexical task heads -- and show that these heads are shared across prompting styles and trigger subsequent answer production. We further find that behavioral variation between prompts can be explained by the degree to which these heads are activated, and that failures are at least sometimes due to competing task representations that dilute the signal of the target task. Our results together present an increasingly clear picture of how LLMs' internal representations can explain behavior that otherwise seems idiosyncratic to users and developers.