arXiv · 2505.13180
ViPlan: A Benchmark for Visual Planning with Symbolic Predicates and Vision-Language Models
Abstract
Integrating Large Language Models with symbolic planners is a promising direction for obtaining verifiable and grounded plans, with recent works extending this idea to visual domains using Vision-Language Models (VLMs). However, an open-source benchmark for comparing these approaches under matched conditions is missing, due to a lack of visual benchmarks that support symbolic planning. We present ViPlan, the first open-source benchmark for comparing VLM-grounded symbolic approaches (VLM-as-grounder) with direct VLM planning methods (VLM-as-planner). ViPlan introduces a series of increasingly challenging tasks in two visual domains: a visual variant of the classic Blocksworld planning problem and a simulated household robotics environment. Averaged across methods, we find VLM-as-grounders to outperform direct VLM planning in Blocksworld (solving 46% of the tasks against 9%), where image grounding is both crucial and accurate. However, in the household robotics tasks, where linguistic knowledge helps, VLM-as-planner methods are greatly superior to VLM-as-grounder approaches (solving 34% of the tasks against 5%), which are hindered by partial observability. Thus, ViPlan domains capture fundamental shortcomings of both planning approaches, which we further diagnose with a qualitative failure analysis. Finally, across methods, we observe no consistent benefit from Chain-of-Thought prompting, suggesting persistent limitations in current VLMs' visual reasoning abilities.
Explore related subjects
Keep this discovery
Matteo Merler, Nicola Dainese, Minttu Alakuijala, Giovanni Bonetta, Pietro Ferrazzi, Yu Tian, Bernardo Magnini, Pekka Marttinen. 2025-05-19. ViPlan: A Benchmark for Visual Planning with Symbolic Predicates and Vision-Language Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13180
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
Discover connections
Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.