Skip to content
AI Atlas
Papercs.AI

Which LLM is Best for Translating Natural Language Goals to PDDL

Published 17 Sept 2026arXiv:2609.18731

data quality89

Updated 24 h ago · first seen 17 Sept 2026

paper_01M2Q5D3TWNEC2C0MDFVGHA348

Abstract

Bridging the gap between human intent and machine execution remains a challenge in automated planning, where expressing goals in formal languages like PDDL restricts accessibility to non-experts. This paper empirically evaluates whether current Large Language Models (LLMs) can reliably translate natural language testing goals, written in informal language by video game testers, into well-formed PDDL targets suitable for classical planning. We present a carefully designed prompt template, integrating insights from iterative experimentation, aimed at maximizing both accuracy and response coherence from multiple state-of-the-art LLMs. Six contemporary models are systematically assessed on correctness, speed, and error tendencies using real-world, domain-specific benchmarks. All models demonstrate high correctness, exceeding 92\%, with Gemini 2.5 Flash achieving the highest accuracy at 96\% and the lowest incidence of false positives, while GPT-4.1 leads in response speed. Despite these advances, critical distinctions exist in model performance, and occasional failures arise from language ambiguity and limitations in domain representation. Our analysis underscores both the significant progress and ongoing gaps in enabling LLMs to act as robust bridges between natural language objectives and automated planning pipelines.

Authors

Authors 3

G. Michael YoungbloodLukas ChrpaTomas Balyo

Linked names open researcher pages (created from the paper's author list; name-only, no affiliation unless a source states it). Unlinked names have no researcher record yet.

Organizations

Organizations 0

No organization stated. arXiv metadata does not carry affiliations; an organization is linked only when a model card or lab page cites the paper.

Models

Models introduced or described 0

Inbound described_by relations from model cards and documentation.

No model links this paper yet

Model pages link papers through their model cards and documentation; the relation is written only when a source states it.

Datasets

Datasets used 0

No dataset relation recorded.

Benchmarks

Benchmarks used 0

No benchmark relation recorded.

Code

Repositories & frameworks 0

No repository linked.

Timeline

Timeline 1

Full timeline →

Sources

Sources 1

Source documents
SourceDocumentTypeTierLast observedSnapshots
arXiv (Atom API + RSS)rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.AI feedT1· Official13 h ago7

Tier 1 = official/primary, 2 = quality secondary, 3 = community, 4 = unverified. Every snapshot is archived; see all sources and the methodology.