John Aydin

Nitin Gupta, Vishal Pallagani, John A. Aydin et al.

Generalized planning studies the construction of solution strategies that generalize across families of planning problems sharing a common domain model, formally defined by a transition function $γ: S \times A \rightarrow S$. Classical approaches achieve such generalization through symbolic abstractions and explicit reasoning over $γ$. In contrast, recent Transformer-based planners, such as PlanGPT and Plansformer, largely cast generalized planning as direct action-sequence prediction, bypassing explicit transition modeling. While effective on in-distribution instances, these approaches typically require large datasets and model sizes, and often suffer from state drift in long-horizon settings due to the absence of explicit world-state evolution. In this work, we formulate generalized planning as a transition-model learning problem, in which a neural model explicitly approximates the successor-state function $\hatγ \approx γ$ and generates plans by rolling out symbolic state trajectories. Instead of predicting actions directly, the model autoregressively predicts intermediate world states, thereby learning the domain dynamics as an implicit world model. To study size-invariant generalization and sample efficiency, we systematically evaluate multiple state representations and neural architectures, including relational graph encodings. Our results show that learning explicit transition models yields higher out-of-distribution satisficing-plan success than direct action-sequence prediction in multiple domains, while achieving these gains with significantly fewer training instances and smaller models. This is an extended version of a short paper accepted at ICAPS 2026 under the same title.

Michael Widener, Kausik Lakkaraju, John Aydin et al.

Time-series forecasting models (TSFM) have evolved from classical statistical methods to sophisticated foundation models, yet understanding why and when these models succeed or fail remains challenging. Despite this known limitation, time series forecasting models are increasingly used to generate information that informs real-world actions with equally real consequences. Understanding the complexity, performance variability, and opaque nature of these models then becomes a valuable endeavor to combat serious concerns about how users should interact with and rely on these models' outputs. This work addresses these concerns by combining traditional explainable AI (XAI) methods with Rating Driven Explanations (RDE) to assess TSFM performance and interpretability across diverse domains and use cases. We evaluate four distinct model architectures: ARIMA, Gradient Boosting, Chronos (time-series specific foundation model), Llama (general-purpose; both fine-tuned and base models) on four heterogeneous datasets spanning finance, energy, transportation, and automotive sales domains. In doing so, we demonstrate that feature-engineered models (e.g., Gradient Boosting) consistently outperform foundation models (e.g., Chronos) in volatile or sparse domains (e.g., power, car parts) while providing more interpretable explanations, whereas foundation models excel only in stable or trend-driven contexts (e.g., finance).

Vishal Pallagani, Nitin Gupta, John Aydin et al.

Understanding how data moves, transforms, and persists, known as data flow, is fundamental to reasoning in procedural tasks. Despite their fluency in natural and programming languages, large language models (LLMs), although increasingly being applied to decisions with procedural tasks, have not been systematically evaluated for their ability to perform data-flow reasoning. We introduce FABLE, an extensible benchmark designed to assess LLMs' understanding of data flow using structured, procedural text. FABLE adapts eight classical data-flow analyses from software engineering: reaching definitions, very busy expressions, available expressions, live variable analysis, interval analysis, type-state analysis, taint analysis, and concurrency analysis. These analyses are instantiated across three real-world domains: cooking recipes, travel routes, and automated plans. The benchmark includes 2,400 question-answer pairs, with 100 examples for each domain-analysis combination. We evaluate three types of LLMs: a reasoning-focused model (DeepSeek-R1 8B), a general-purpose model (LLaMA 3.1 8B), and a code-specific model (Granite Code 8B). Each model is tested using majority voting over five sampled completions per prompt. Results show that the reasoning model achieves higher accuracy, but at the cost of over 20 times slower inference compared to the other models. In contrast, the general-purpose and code-specific models perform close to random chance. FABLE provides the first diagnostic benchmark to systematically evaluate data-flow reasoning and offers insights for developing models with stronger procedural understanding.