用NLP方法分析并修复LLM生成的规划,提升可靠性。
How Far Are LLMs from Symbolic Planners? An NLP-Based Perspective
- 将规划任务视为NLP问题,通过文本处理修复错误计划
- 平均仅前2.65步可执行,经典规划器平均生成8.4步计划
- 虽提升成功率至27.5%,仍远低于传统规划器可靠性
大型语言模型(LLMs)在推理与规划方面的能力近年来备受关注。尽管其能处理非结构化规划问题,但生成的计划常包含错误或幻觉动作。现有评估多以成功率为主,聚焦于验证或宽松条件下的规划。本文将LLM规划视为自然语言处理(NLP)任务,提出一个包含三阶段的恢复流程:首先通过NLP评估生成计划,再经由NLP操作修复计划,最终由符号规划器完成剩余部分。该流程揭示了LLM在生成计划时缺乏明确推理能力,且即使经过修复,平均仅有2.65个动作可执行,而符号规划器生成的计划平均长度为8.4步。尽管成功率达27.5%(原21.9%),仍显著低于经典规划器。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
The reasoning and planning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) have been a frequent topic of discussion in recent years. Their ability to take unstructured planning problems as input has made LLMs' integration into AI planning an area of interest. Nevertheless, LLMs are still not reliable as planners, with the generated plans often containing mistaken or hallucinated actions. Existing benchmarking and evaluation methods investigate planning with LLMs, focusing primarily on success rate as a quality indicator in various planning tasks, such as validating plans or planning in relaxed conditions. In this paper, we approach planning with LLMs as a natural language processing (NLP) task, given that LLMs are NLP models themselves. We propose a recovery pipeline consisting of an NLP-based evaluation of the generated plans, along with three stages to recover the plans through NLP manipulation of the LLM-generated plans, and eventually complete the plan using a symbolic planner. This pipeline provides a holistic analysis of LLM capabilities in the context of AI task planning, enabling a broader understanding of the quality of invalid plans. Our findings reveal no clear evidence of underlying reasoning during plan generation, and that a pipeline comprising an NLP-based analysis of the plans, followed by a recovery mechanism, still falls short of the quality and reliability of classical planners. On average, only the first 2.65 actions of the plan are executable, with the average length of symbolically generated plans being 8.4 actions. The pipeline still improves action quality and increases the overall success rate from 21.9% to 27.5%.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。