publications

2026

1. ACL2026

   

   Language Model as Planner and Formalizer under Constraints

   Cassie Huang, Stuti Mohan, Ziyi Yang, Stefanie Tellex, and Li Zhang

   In Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Jul 2026

   Abs Paper Code

   LLMs have been widely used in planning, either as planners to generate action sequences end-to-end, or as formalizers to represent the planning domain and problem in a formal language that can derive plans deterministically. However, both lines of work rely on standard benchmarks that include only generic and simplistic environmental specifications, leading to potential overestimation of the planning ability of LLMs and safety concerns in downstream tasks. We bridge this gap by augmenting widely used planning benchmarks with manually annotated, fine-grained, and rich natural language constraints spanning four formally defined categories. Over 4 state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, 4 formal languages, and 4 datasets, we show that the introduction of one-sentence constraints consistently halves performance, indicating current LLMs’ lack of robustness and an avenue for future research.

2. ACL2026

   

   Unifying Inference-Time Planning Language Generation

   Prabhu Prakash Kagitha, Bo Sun, Ishan Desai, Andrew Zhu, Cassie Huang, Manling Li, Ziyang Li, and Li Zhang

   In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026, Jul 2026

   Abs Paper DOI Code

   A line of work in planning uses LLM not to generate a plan, but to generate a formal representation in some planning language, which can be input into a symbolic solver to deterministically find a plan. While showing improved trust and promising performance, dozens of recent publications have proposed scattered methods on a variety of benchmarks under different experimental settings. We attempt to unify the inference-time LLM-as-formalizer methodology for classical planning by proposing a unifying organizational framework based on intermediate representations. We thus systematically evaluate more than a dozen pipelines that subsume most existing work, while proposing novel ones that involve syntactically similar but high-resource intermediate languages (such as a Python wrapper of PDDL). We provide recipes for planning language generation pipelines, draw a series of conclusions showing the efficacy of their various components, and evidence their robustness against problem complexity.

3. arXiv

   

   Language Models as Higher-Order Planning Formalizers

   Owen Jiang, Cassie Huang, Ashish Sabharwal, and Li Zhang

   2026

   Abs Paper

   Recent work provides overwhelming evidence that LLMs, even those trained to scale their reasoning trace, quickly deteriorate at planning as problems become more complex. LLM-as-Formalizers aim to address this by employing LLMs as a bridge to translate natural language descriptions into structured planning representations such as PDDL, which are then fed to a programmatic solver. We observe that its success may be overstated because planning problem descriptions in standard benchmarks often have a one-to-one mapping to PDDL, which departs from real use cases. To address this, we introduce the notion of unraveling problems where a natural yet succinct description translates into a very large PDDL representation. Using unraveling variants of four standard planning domains, we demonstrate that LLM Formalizers also do not always scale. We tackle this challenge by introducing a new paradigm, LLM-as-Higher-Order-Formalizer, where the LLM generates a high-level program that captures the recurrent logic within the description and in turn generates the larger PDDL representation. This decouples token output from the combinatorial explosion of the underlying formalization and search space, leading to improved performance for complex problems.

4. arXiv

   

   Asymmetric Capacity Allocation in Self-Refinement Pipelines

   Zhuoyi Yang, Ian G. Harris, Salar Hashemitaheri, Cassie Huang, Yuangang Li, Hyunwoo Oh, Paul Dourish, Tony Givargis, Mohsen Imani, and Li Zhang

   2026

   Abs Paper

   Self-refinement, typically structured as generation, critique, and revision, is a widely adopted paradigm for improving LLM generation and serves as a core mechanism in many LLM agents. While the three stages involve different cognitive demands, most existing approaches conveniently treat the model size as an implementation detail rather than a subject of study, which may lead to a waste of resources. Little work has systematically examined how model size affects each stage or whether effective self-refinement requires equally capable models for generation, critique, and revision. We present the first stage-wise model size study of the self-refinement pipeline on 5 benchmarks from different domains using 6 model sizes of Qwen3 and 4 model sizes of Gemma 3. We conclude that larger generators and refiners generally improve the pipeline, whereas an undersized refiner can even harm performance. Second, performance is highly insensitive to the size of the critic, although including even a small critic consistently outperforms omitting critique altogether. Our findings demonstrate that model capacity should not be allocated uniformly across self-refinement pipelines. Instead, different stages exhibit distinct size scaling characteristics, providing practical guidance for designing more computationally efficient multi-stage language model systems."

5. arXiv

   

   Planning Commitment of LLM under Partial Observability

   Cassie Huang, Zhanwei Cao, Yeawon Lee, Nathalia Gomez, Zhuoyi Yang, Ian G. Harris, Tiffany D. Do, Jiayuan Mao, and Li Zhang

   2026

   Abs Paper

   LLM-based planning agents commit to plans of different lengths before interacting with a partially observable environment. Some aggressively commit to a long plan based on assumptions about unobserved states, while others conservatively plan only over what they have observed. Both behaviors emerge implicitly in pre-trained models, whether the LLM outputs a plan directly or generates a PDDL formulation for a classical solver. Aggressive commitment risks costly failures, while conservative commitment risks excessive LLM calls. This choice pits safety against efficiency, a trade-off that has been neither characterized systematically nor made controllable. We investigate aggressive and conservative LLM planners and formalizers on two partially observable domains, where priors are provided as either explicit statistics or common-sense knowledge. Across three LLMs, both strategies reach similar accuracy. Conservative methods achieve fewer failed attempts (safety) at the cost of more API calls (efficiency). Aggressive methods fail more often but replan efficiently only when priors are informative. Interestingly, analysis shows that LLMs treat the provided priors nearly as facts, which risks failure when priors are unreliable. We also explore hybrid strategies with tunable hyperparameters that adjust the balance between safety and efficiency.

2025

1. ACL2025

   

   On the Limit of Language Models as Planning Formalizers

   Cassie Huang and Li Zhang

   In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Jul 2025

   Abs Paper Code

   Large Language Models have been found to create plans that are neither executable nor verifiable in grounded environments. An emerging line of work demonstrates success in using the LLM as a formalizer to generate a formal representation of the planning domain in some language, such as Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL). This formal representation can be deterministically solved to find a plan. We systematically evaluate this methodology while bridging some major gaps. While previous work only generates a partial PDDL representation, given templated, and therefore unrealistic environment descriptions, we generate the complete representation given descriptions of various naturalness levels. Among an array of observations critical to improve LLMs’ formal planning abilities, we note that most large enough models can effectively formalize descriptions as PDDL, outperforming those directly generating plans, while being robust to lexical perturbation. As the descriptions become more natural-sounding, we observe a decrease in performance and provide detailed error analysis.