Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Source content · Analysis pending2 min read

When Planning Problems Become Hard for LLMs: Separating Structural Complexity from Semantic Interpretability

Summary

arXiv:2610.26964v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) struggle with classical planning, but benchmarks rarely distinguish structural difficulty from the difficulty of interpreting symbolic vocabulary. We examine seven STRIPS domains with BFS-optimal plan lengths. For predicting structural difficulty without solving an instance, the zero-training delete-relaxation heuristic $h_{\mathrm{add}}$ outperforms learned alternatives on held-out domains (mean Spearman $|\rho|=0.931$), including ridge regression ($0.707$), object count ($0.657$), and the episodic retrieval architecture ARC ($0.400$). ARC also fails to outperform a linear model using the same features. To isolate semantic effects, we progressively rename predicates while preserving states, transitions, and opti…

SourcearXiv AIAuthor: Mayukh Debnath, Adeyinka Adedigba, Rammohan Mallipeddi
When Planning Problems Become Hard for LLMs: Separating Structural Complexity from Semantic Interpretability
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 18 Oct 2026]

Title:When Planning Problems Become Hard for LLMs: Separating Structural Complexity from Semantic Interpretability

View a PDF of the paper titled When Planning Problems Become Hard for LLMs: Separating Structural Complexity from Semantic Interpretability, by Mayukh Debnath and 2 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) struggle with classical planning, but benchmarks rarely distinguish structural difficulty from the difficulty of interpreting symbolic vocabulary. We examine seven STRIPS domains with BFS-optimal plan lengths. For predicting structural difficulty without solving an instance, the zero-training delete-relaxation heuristic $h_{\mathrm{add}}$ outperforms learned alternatives on held-out domains (mean Spearman $|\rho|=0.931$), including ridge regression ($0.707$), object count ($0.657$), and the episodic retrieval architecture ARC ($0.400$). ARC also fails to outperform a linear model using the same features. To isolate semantic effects, we progressively rename predicates while preserving states, transitions, and optimal plans. Valid LLM planning success drops from $67.5\%$ to $40.0\%$ between $0\%$ and $100\%$ renaming, while refusals remain at $0\%$. An LLM supplied with ARC's conditioning information predicts difficulty in context better than trained ARC (mean $|\rho|=0.826$). Hybrid routing between an LLM and a symbolic planner depends more on calibration to the target LLM's outcomes than on the structural score selected. Thus, established symbolic heuristics already estimate structural difficulty well; improving hybrid planning requires modeling LLM behavior sensitive to predicate semantics rather than developing more structural predictors.

Comments: 10 pages, 1 figure, 17 supplementary pages

Subjects:

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

Cite as: arXiv:2610.26964 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2610.26964v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.26964

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Adeyinka Adedigba [view email] [v1] Sun, 18 Oct 2026 15:45:30 UTC (836 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled When Planning Problems Become Hard for LLMs: Separating Structural Complexity from Semantic Interpretability, by Mayukh Debnath and 2 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.AI

new | recent | 2026-10

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

SciX

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • AI generation is temporarily unavailable; this entry was preserved with deterministic fallback metadata.
  • arXiv:2610.26964v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) struggle with classical planning, but benchmarks rarely distinguish structural difficulty from the dif…

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.