End-to-end PDDL Planning with Hardcoded and Dynamic Agents

Emanuele La Malfa; Ping Zhu; Samuele Marro; Sara Bernardini; Michael Wooldridge

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2512.09629

End-to-end PDDL Planning with Hardcoded and Dynamic Agents

Emanuele La Malfa·Ping Zhu·Samuele Marro·Sara Bernardini·Michael Wooldridge

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We present an end-to-end framework for planning supported by verifiers. An orchestrator receives a human specification written in natural language and converts it into a PDDL (Planning Domain Definition Language) model, where the domain and problem are iteratively refined by sub-modules (agents) to address common planning requirements, such as time constraints and optimality, as well as ambiguities and contradictions that may exist in the human specification. We support two categories of agents: hardcoded, which are informed by logs and error traces and have a pre-defined goal (e.g., fix issues with PDDL syntax, check temporal constraints), and dynamic, which have no predefined goal but adapt to the specific domain and revise the latent planning abstraction. The validated domain and problem are then passed to an external planning engine to generate a plan. The orchestrator and agents are powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) and require no human intervention at any stage of the process. Finally, a module translates the final plan back into natural language to improve human readability while maintaining the correctness of each step. We demonstrate the flexibility and effectiveness of our framework on GPT-\{4o, 5-mini, 5.4\}, and Gemini-\{2.5, 3\}-flash across more than ten domains and tasks, including the Google NaturalPlan benchmark, Planbench, and classic planning problems like Sokoban, Blocksworld and the Tower of Hanoi, where LLMs are known to struggle even with small instances. Our framework can be integrated with any PDDL planning engine and validator (we successfully tested Fast Downward, LPG, POPF, VAL, and uVAL) and represents a significant step toward end-to-end planning aided by LLMs.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI cs.LG

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Emanuele La Malfa, Ping Zhu, Samuele Marro, Sara Bernardini, Michael Wooldridge. 2025-12-10. End-to-end PDDL Planning with Hardcoded and Dynamic Agents. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.09629

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗