arXiv subjects

Augusto B. Corrêa

Publications and source records attributed to Augusto B. Corrêa.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

LeanPlan: Optimal Planning with LLM-Generated Heuristics and Admissibility Proofs

Frontier large language models (LLMs) can generate heuristic functions that guide search to achieve state-of-the-art performance in satisficing planning, where any plan is acceptable. However, these heuristics are not guaranteed to be admissible and can lead to suboptimal plans. We introduce LeanPlan, the first planning system that finds optimal plans with LLM-generated heuristics whose admissibility is machine-checked. Given a domain description and training tasks, an agentic loop uses planner feedback to iteratively improve a reusable domain-specific heuristic, its admissibility proof and the required domain assumptions. LeanPlan implements the heuristic, its proof and an efficient planner with machine-checked grounding and search in Lean 4. We evaluate LeanPlan on ten domains from the International Planning Competition and three new domains, using test tasks with up to 57 times as many objects as the training tasks. With GPT-5.6 Sol in the agentic loop, we successfully generate heuristics and admissibility proofs for all these domains. With the resulting heuristics, LeanPlan usually expands fewer states than the state-of-the-art Scorpion planner and solves more tasks overall.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Hierarchical Task Network Planning with LLM-Generated Heuristics

HTN planning is a variation of classical planning where, instead of searching for a linear sequence of actions, an algorithm decomposes higher-level tasks using a method library until only executable actions remain. On one hand, this allows one to introduce domain knowledge that can speed up the search for a solution through the method library. On the other hand, it creates challenges that go beyond those of classical state-space search. While recent research produced a number of heuristics and novel algorithms that speed up HTN planning, these heuristics are not yet as informative as those available in classical planning algorithms. We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can generate effective search heuristics for HTN planning, extending the methodology of Corrêa, Pereira, and Seipp (2025) from classical to hierarchical planning. Using the Pytrich planner on six standard total-order HTN benchmark domains, we evaluate heuristics generated by nine LLMs under domain-specific prompting and compare them against the TDG and LMCount domain-independent baselines and the PANDA planner. Our results show that LLM-generated heuristics nearly match the coverage of the best available HTN planner, while substantially reducing search effort on 83% of shared problems.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Property-Guided LLM Program Synthesis for Planning

LLMs have shown impressive success in program synthesis, discovering programs that surpass prior solutions. However, these approaches rely on simple numeric scores to signal program quality, such as the value of the solution or the number of passed tests. Because a score offers no guidance on why a program failed, the system must generate and evaluate many candidates hoping some succeed, increasing LLM inference and evaluation costs. We study a different approach: property-guided LLM program synthesis. Instead of scoring programs after evaluation, we check whether a candidate satisfies a formally defined property. When the property is violated, we stop the evaluation early and provide the LLM with a concrete counterexample showing exactly how the program failed. This feedback drastically reduces both the number of program generations and the evaluation cost, and can guide the LLM to generate stronger programs. We evaluate this approach on PDDL planning domains, asking the LLM to synthesize direct heuristic functions: every state reachable by strictly improving transitions has a strictly improving successor. A heuristic with this property leads hill-climbing algorithm directly to a goal state. A counterexample-guided repair loop generates one candidate program, checks the property over a training set, and returns the first case that violates the property. We evaluate our approach on ten planning domains with an out-of-distribution test set. The synthesized heuristics are effectively direct on virtually all test tasks, and compared to the best prior generation method our approach generates seven times fewer programs per domain on average, solves more tasks without using search, and requires several orders of magnitude less computation to evaluate candidates. Whenever a problem admits a verifiable property, property-guided LLM synthesis can reduce cost and improve program quality.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Frontier Large Language Models Rival State-of-the-Art Planners

A series of influential studies established that large language models cannot reliably solve even simple planning tasks. We show that the latest generation of frontier models overturns this conclusion. We evaluate three families of frontier LLMs on a challenging set of planning tasks based on the most recent International Planning Competition following rigorous evaluation guidelines: solutions are verified with a validation tool, tasks are freshly created to avoid data contamination, and performance is compared against state-of-the-art classical planners. On standard task descriptions, Gemini 3.1 Pro outperforms the strongest planner baseline (245 vs. 234 solved tasks out of 360), while GPT-5 achieves comparable performance to the baselines. When all semantic information is obfuscated from the descriptions to test for pure symbolic planning, performance degrades but Gemini 3.1 Pro remains competitive with the strongest baselines. A longitudinal comparison across model generations -- from GPT-3.5, which solves zero tasks, to GPT-5 -- reveals a striking upward trajectory. Frontier LLMs might finally be able to plan; the question now is how far this capability will extend.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Iterative Deployment Improves Planning Skills in LLMs

We show that iterative deployment of large language models (LLMs), each fine-tuned on data carefully curated by users from the previous models' deployment, can significantly change the properties of the resultant models. By testing this mechanism on various planning domains, we observe substantial improvements in planning skills, with later models displaying emergent generalization by discovering much longer plans than the initial models. We then provide theoretical analysis showing that iterative deployment effectively implements reinforcement learning (RL) training in the outer-loop (i.e. not as part of intentional model training), with an implicit reward function. The connection to RL has two important implications: first, for the field of AI safety, as the reward function entailed by repeated deployment is not defined explicitly, and could have unexpected implications to the properties of future model deployments. Second, the mechanism highlighted here can be viewed as an alternative training regime to explicit RL, relying on data curation rather than explicit rewards.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Classical Planning with LLM-Generated Heuristics: Challenging the State of the Art with Python Code

In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in various artificial intelligence problems. However, they fail to plan reliably, even when prompted with a detailed definition of the planning task. Attempts to improve their planning capabilities, such as chain-of-thought prompting, fine-tuning, and explicit "reasoning" still yield incorrect plans and usually fail to generalize to larger tasks. In this paper, we show how to use LLMs to generate correct plans, even for out-of-distribution tasks of increasing size. For a given planning domain, we ask an LLM to generate several domain-dependent heuristic functions in the form of Python code, evaluate them on a set of training tasks within a greedy best-first search, and choose the strongest one. The resulting LLM-generated heuristics solve many more unseen test tasks than state-of-the-art domain-independent heuristics for classical planning. They are even competitive with the strongest learning algorithm for domain-dependent planning. These findings are especially remarkable given that our proof-of-concept implementation is based on an unoptimized Python planner and the baselines all build upon highly optimized C++ code. In some domains, the LLM-generated heuristics expand fewer states than the baselines, revealing that they are not only efficiently computable, but sometimes even more informative than the state-of-the-art heuristics. Overall, our results show that sampling a set of planning heuristic function programs can significantly improve the planning capabilities of LLMs.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Counting and Reasoning with Plans

Classical planning asks for a sequence of operators reaching a given goal. While the most common case is to compute a plan, many scenarios require more than that. However, quantitative reasoning on the plan space remains mostly unexplored. A fundamental problem is to count plans, which relates to the conditional probability on the plan space. Indeed, qualitative and quantitative approaches are well-established in various other areas of automated reasoning. We present the first study to quantitative and qualitative reasoning on the plan space. In particular, we focus on polynomially bounded plans. On the theoretical side, we study its complexity, which gives rise to rich reasoning modes. Since counting is hard in general, we introduce the easier notion of facets, which enables understanding the significance of operators. On the practical side, we implement quantitative reasoning for planning. Thereby, we transform a planning task into a propositional formula and use knowledge compilation to count different plans. This framework scales well to large plan spaces, while enabling rich reasoning capabilities such as learning pruning functions and explainable planning.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

The Universal PDDL Domain

In AI planning, it is common to distinguish between planning domains and problem instances, where a "domain" is generally understood as a set of related problem instances. This distinction is important, for example, in generalised planning, which aims to find a single, general plan or policy that solves all instances of a given domain. In PDDL, domains and problem instances are clearly separated: the domain defines the types, predicate symbols, and action schemata, while the problem instance specifies the concrete set of (typed) objects, the initial state, and the goal condition. In this paper, we show that it is quite easy to define a PDDL domain such that any propositional planning problem instance, from any domain, becomes an instance of this (lifted) "universal" domain. We construct different formulations of the universal domain, and discuss their implications for the complexity of lifted domain-dependent or generalised planning.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Consolidating LAMA with Best-First Width Search

One key decision for heuristic search algorithms is how to balance exploration and exploitation. In classical planning, novelty search has come out as the most successful approach in this respect. The idea is to favor states that contain previously unseen facts when searching for a plan. This is done by maintaining a record of the tuples of facts observed in previous states. Then the novelty of a state is the size of the smallest previously unseen tuple. The most successful version of novelty search is best-first width search (BFWS), which combines novelty measures with heuristic estimates. An orthogonal approach to balance exploration-exploitation is to use several open-lists. These open-lists are ordered using different heuristic estimates, which diversify the information used in the search. The search algorithm then alternates between these open-lists, trying to exploit these different estimates. This is the approach used by LAMA, a classical planner that, a decade after its release, is still considered state-of-the-art in agile planning. In this paper, we study how to combine LAMA and BFWS. We show that simply adding the strongest open-list used in BFWS to LAMA harms performance. However, we show that combining only parts of each planner leads to a new state-of-the-art agile planner.

cs.AI↗