Grounded Evaluation and Repair for NL-to-PDDL Problem Generation

Results also show that structured repair can be useful, and that PDDL~2.1 remains challenging for reference reconstruction, even when operational success improves. It comes from a paper posted to arXiv on 11 September 2026. Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise for translating Natural Language (NL) planning descriptions into PDDL problem instances. However, standard evaluation criteria such as syntactic validity or planner success can substantially overestimate faithfulness to the described task: a generated problem may be parseable and solvable while misrepresenting the intended initial state, goal, object structure, or optimization target. This paper studies an end-to-end NL-to-PDDL pipeline that combines LLM generation, checks in terms of PDDL parsing, planning and validation, a domain-conformance checker, an LLM critic, and iterative repair. Fine-grained repair feedback is constructed from the domain description, the generated problem, the natural language problem description, and operational diagnostics. Reference-based comparisons against curated benchmark PDDL problem descriptions are used for post-hoc benchmark analysis, and these offline checks include renaming-invariant structural matching and semantic equivalence, where domain support is available. Across Planetarium, AutoPlanBench, and curated PDDL~2.1 problems, results show that operational success and benchmark-reference reconstruction can diverge substantially.

Why it counts

Results also show that structured repair can be useful, and that PDDL~2.1 remains challenging for reference reconstruction, even when operational success improves.

Sources

Primary source: primary source

What is not known

This brief does not claim independent replication. Claims that appear only on X and not in the primary source stay unknown.