Hierarchical Task Network (HTN) planning is a powerful planning formalism based on task decomposition. Although most of the literature studied plan generation, comparatively less attention has been paid to post-plan optimization. In particular, plan deordering has been extensively studied in classical planning but remains under-researched in the HTN setting. Plan deordering removes unnecessary ordering constraints between actions in a plan whilst keeping the plan valid. In this paper, we adapt two established plan deordering techniques from classical planning by extending the techniques to account for hierarchical decomposition constraints. We evaluate our proposed approaches on the IPC 2023 Partial-Order HTN benchmarks and we compare them against Optiplan, an HTN planner that generates partially ordered plans directly. Our results show a substantial reduction in number of ordering constraints in both our implementations. Although we also observe a reduction in critical path length, the improvements are less pronounced.
AI planning is concerned with finding a sequence of actions that achieves a specified goal. It relies on explicit models of the world, commonly represented in the Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL). An active line of research investigates how errors in such models can be detected and repaired. For example, users may provide positive test plans that are solutions, and negative test plans that fail during execution. Automated repair methods then modify the PDDL model to satisfy these constraints. In this paper, we evaluate the ability of recent open-weight large language models to perform this repair task using an LLM-only approach. Our experiments show that the symbolic baseline achieves an $F_1$ score of $.49$, while the best-performing LLM reaches $.87$ with high reasoning effort, an absolute improvement of $.38$. However, that setting has a mean test pass rate of only $.82$, falling to $.06$ on the Thoughtful domain; even the best setting that includes the test traces reaches only $.92$. Thus, current open-weight models cannot guarantee satisfaction of the test constraints required for reliable automated model repair.
Systems that automate scientific discovery must repeatedly decide which experiment to run, which hypothesis to test, which tool to build, and when to stop. Many systems make these decisions by maximizing a myopic score such as expected information gain per unit cost or a learned plausibility score. We identify a structural limitation of this approach. Some actions are constructive: they acquire an epistemic capability (an instrument, assay, pipeline, simulator, or abstraction) whose value lies not in the information returned immediately but in the future actions it makes available. When the least-cost route to a confident answer requires a chain of such constructions, a planner that scores actions only by information obtainable within a bounded horizon cannot value the first construction: it yields no information within the horizon and is dominated by any measurement with positive information, however small. We formulate goal-directed discovery as a stochastic shortest-path problem in belief space in which constructive experiments change the downstream action graph, and prove that for every lookahead depth d there is an instance on which every myopic information-maximizing planner has an unbounded approximation ratio, and a related instance on which it never reaches the goal. The mechanism is a capability-indistinguishability lemma: within the horizon, acquiring a capability can be observationally indistinguishable from paying for a null action. This establishes capability gating as a reachability axis of difficulty distinct from curvature (submodularity) and information order (adaptivity gaps). We introduce CG-Plan, an incremental replanner with a capability-aware cost-to-go heuristic h = h_cap + h_exp. In a controlled testbed, the performance gap appears only under gating, persists for every fixed horizon, and arises when near-miss hypotheses come from a data-consistent proposer.
Martha Del Toro, Raquel Fuentetaja, Angel García-Olayacs.AI
In some real applications a plan may later become unfeasible due to newly imposed budget constraints, yet, at the same time, using only the original actions of the plan and their order is mandatory. In this paper, we study the problem of extracting, from a precomputed plan, a valid subplan that maximizes utility while respecting a cost bound. Each goal is given a utility value and the plan is reduced by removing actions that support low-utility goals, while preserving both executability and the original action order. We show the decision variant is NP-complete and propose two exact methods to solve it: one via oversubscription planning (OSP) and another via Integer Linear Programming (ILP). This paper extends our previous work published at ICAPS 2026 (Del Toro, Fuentetaja, and García-Olaya 2026b). While the core framework remains as introduced there, we further introduce a refined ILP formulation that significantly decreases the model size and improves computational efficiency.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have had a remarkable impact across many areas of machine learning. However, recent studies have shown that they struggle to reliably solve planning problems. At the same time, theoretical results have shown that transformers, the core architecture underlying modern LLMs, are Turing-complete. In this work, we investigate this apparent gap between the theoretical computational power of LLMs and their empirical planning performance. We propose Chain of Computation (COC), a computational architecture that places a transformer-based LM inside an iterative loop, leveraging its strength as a pattern-matching system. The COC uses a Structured Context Window (SCW) which provides a constant-sized context window with support for choosing which window is used at each planning step. Within this architecture, the LM is able to learn a planning policy, predicts the world model, and performs the arithmetic operations required during planning. We show that, when given an append-only SCW (resembling a Turing Machine tape), even relatively small LMs trained from scratch can learn planning policies and generalize from a small number of training instances within each planning domain, achieving success rates above 99.89\% on BlocksWorld and the Pancake puzzle. Our analysis of failure cases in Tower of Hanoi (TOH) reveals that they arise from arithmetic operations or from encountering previously unseen tokens. We show that COC can solve TOH problem instances with up to 20 disks, requiring over 1 million actions, while requiring substantially less training data by either (1) planning with symbolical support for arithmetic or by (2) using a deterministic pushdown automaton (PDA) formulation for the SCW.
When LLMs exhibit uneven performance across planning tasks, these gaps are often attributed to task difficulty. We argue that this explanation is incomplete, as task-level variation may reflect distinct latent planning competencies rather than differences along a single ability spectrum. We study this question on ACPBench-Hard by evaluating multiple LLM families under varying test-time reasoning budgets and applying a multidimensional item response theory model to uncover the latent competency structure underlying LLM planning. The analysis reveals two principal dimensions that shape planning performance: operational reasoning, the ability to evaluate local action applicability and immediate state transitions, and structural enumeration, the ability to reason about goal reachability and landmark structure. Operational reasoning improving under model scaling and longer reasoning traces, while structural enumeration remains comparatively insensitive. Our findings motivate competency-level evaluation of LLM planning, shifting the focus from whether models improve overall to which planning competencies improve, under what conditions, and why.
Hugo Barral, Quentin Cappart, Marie-José Huguet +1cs.AI
Admissible heuristics are essential for optimal planning, yet learning them remains challenging due to the risk of overestimation. Cost partitioning combines multiple abstraction heuristics while preserving admissibility, but computing optimal partitions online is expensive. We propose a framework that learns to infer admissible cost partitions by leveraging the Lagrangian dual equivalence between cost partitioning and multiplier prediction. Planning states and patterns are encoded as labelled graphs, and an action-centric variant of the Weisfeiler-Leman algorithm extracts structural feature vectors. A deep architecture with axial self-attention and a softmax output layer maps these features to cost weights that satisfy the partition constraints by construction, ensuring admissibility. Experiments demonstrate reduced node expansions compared to suboptimal partitioning baselines while maintaining strict admissibility. To our knowledge, this is the first machine-learned heuristic guaranteed to be admissible.
Alberto Pozanco, Daniel Borrajo, Manuela Velosocs.AI
Automated planning traditionally assumes that all aspects of a planning task (initial state, goals, and available actions) are fully specified in advance, an approach well-suited to domains with fixed rules and deterministic execution. However, real-world planning often requires flexibility, allowing for deviations from the original task parameters in response to unforeseen circumstances or to improve outcomes. This paper surveys existing works on counterfactual reasoning in automated planning, categorizing them by what elements are changed, when the reasoning is triggered, and why and how these changes are made. We conclude by discussing key findings and outlining open research questions to guide future work in this area.