REVIEW 1 cited by
Haste Makes Waste: Evaluating Planning Abilities of LLMs for Efficient and Feasible Multitasking with Time Constraints Between Actions
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
While Large Language Model-based agents have demonstrated substantial progress in task completion, existing evaluation benchmarks tend to overemphasize single-task performance, with insufficient attention given to the crucial aspects of multitask planning and execution efficiency required in real-world scenarios. To bridge this gap, we present Recipe2Plan, a novel benchmark framework based on real-world cooking scenarios. Unlike conventional benchmarks, Recipe2Plan challenges agents to optimize cooking time through parallel task execution while respecting temporal constraints i.e. specific actions need to be performed within a particular time intervals following the preceding steps. Overly aggressive local parallelization may disrupt this constraint, potentially compromising the entire cooking process. This strict time constraint between actions raises a unique challenge for agents to balance between maximizing concurrent operations and adhering to critical timing constraints. Extensive experiments with state-of-the-art models reveal challenges in maintaining this balance between efficiency and feasibility. The results highlight the need for improved temporal awareness and global multitasking capabilities in large language models. We open-source our benchmark and code at https://github.com/WilliamZR/Recipe2Plan.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
PLANET: A Collection of Benchmarks for Evaluating LLMs' Planning Capabilities
A survey that catalogs and categorizes existing planning benchmarks for LLM agents and lists open gaps, without introducing new benchmarks, data, or experimental results.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.