Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 34 references

Language Models as Higher-Order Planning Formalizers

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-07-13 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Language models scale better as planning formalizers when they emit compact programs that expand into large PDDL, not the PDDL itself.

desk verdict Useful idea on paper, but we only have the abstract—the supplied full text is a different medical-imaging paper, so none of the claims can be checked. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.23844 v2 pith:IVCCCXHE submitted 2026-03-25 cs.CL

Owen Jiang , Cassie Huang , Ashish Sabharwal , Li Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords largelanguagemodelsplanningPDDLformalizationhigher-orderformalizerunravelingproblemsprogramsynthesis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Standard LLM-as-formalizer pipelines translate natural-language planning problems into PDDL and hand them to a classical solver. That approach looks strong on common benchmarks, but those benchmarks usually have a near one-to-one mapping from the description to the PDDL, which is not how real problems are stated. The paper introduces “unraveling” variants of four classic domains in which a short natural description must expand into a combinatorially large formalization; direct formalizers fail to scale on them. The proposed fix is a higher-order formalizer: the model writes a short program that encodes the recurrent structure and then expands that program into the full PDDL. Because the model’s token budget is no longer tied to the size of the expanded representation, performance on complex unraveling instances improves.

What carries the argument

LLM-as-Higher-Order-Formalizer: the model emits a compact program that encodes the repeated structure of an unraveling problem; executing that program yields the large PDDL instance that a classical solver then uses.

What would settle it

Measure whether, on the same unraveling instances, a direct LLM formalizer (or a stronger long-context formalizer) matches or exceeds the higher-order program approach in correct PDDL generation and final plan success once output-length limits are removed or controlled for.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Direct LLM-to-PDDL formalization does not reliably scale once a succinct natural-language description must be expanded into a very large structured representation. Generating an intermediate high-level program that captures the recurrent logic, then letting that program produce the PDDL, decouples the model’s output length from the combinatorial size of the formalization and restores better planning performance on those hard instances.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the idea that standard planning benchmarks’ near one-to-one natural-language-to-PDDL mappings are unrealistic, and that the authors’ hand-constructed unraveling variants are a fair enough proxy for real formalization difficulty.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Unraveling-style benchmarks become a necessary stress test for any claim that LLMs can formalize planning problems at scale.
  • Token budget for formalization can be spent on a short generative program rather than on enumerating the expanded domain, reducing output length for large instances.
  • Classical PDDL solvers remain the search engine; the LLM’s job is only to produce a correct, compact generator of the formalization.
  • The same higher-order pattern may apply to other structured formalisms that expand combinatorially from a short natural description.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the higher-order program is itself buggy, the expanded PDDL will be systematically wrong; verification of the generator becomes as important as verification of the expanded instance.
  • The approach suggests a general recipe for any domain where natural language is succinct but the underlying symbolic encoding is large: have the model write the expander, not the expansion.
  • Real-world planning tools that already accept programmatic domain generators could absorb this paradigm with little change to the solver stack.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The abstract of arXiv:2603.23844 argues that LLM-as-Formalizer success on planning is overstated because standard benchmarks often admit near one-to-one natural-language-to-PDDL mappings. It introduces “unraveling problems,” in which a succinct description expands into a very large PDDL representation, claims that direct formalizers fail to scale on unraveling variants of four standard domains, and proposes LLM-as-Higher-Order-Formalizer: the LLM emits a compact high-level program that encodes recurrent structure and then expands into the full PDDL, decoupling token budget from combinatorial growth and improving performance on complex instances.

Significance. If the unraveling construction is a faithful stress test and the higher-order program approach demonstrably recovers solver success where direct formalization fails, the work would be a useful methodological contribution to LLM planning: it would separate formalization scalability from search scalability and give a concrete alternative to pure chain-of-thought planning. Those claims, however, cannot be assessed from the materials supplied for review.

major comments (3)
  1. The full manuscript text provided under the CACHEABLE PAPER SOURCE CONTEXT is an entirely different paper (3D-LLDM, arXiv:2603.23845, on label-guided 3D latent diffusion for hepatic MR synthesis). It contains no PDDL, no planning domains, no unraveling constructions, no formalizer baselines, and no higher-order program results. The central claims of 2603.23844 are therefore uninspectable.
  2. Because the correct manuscript is absent, load-bearing elements cannot be checked: definitions and size-scaling of the four unraveling domains; quantitative success rates of LLM-as-Formalizer vs. LLM-as-Higher-Order-Formalizer; ablations isolating the program-generation step; and any independent justification that one-to-one NL–PDDL benchmarks “depart from real use cases.” Without these, the abstract’s performance and ecological-validity claims remain unsupported.
  3. The review cannot proceed on abstract alone. A formal journal evaluation requires the actual methods, experimental design, tables, and discussion of 2603.23844. The present package is not a reviewable submission for that paper.
minor comments (2)
  1. Abstract only: the term “unraveling problems” and the four domain variants are undefined; even a short formal sketch would be needed in any resubmission.
  2. Abstract only: “improved performance for complex problems” is stated without metrics, baselines, or problem-size axes; any future manuscript should report solver success rates and token/program length scaling.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity detectable: target paper is empirical methods work; supplied full text is the wrong manuscript (3D-LLDM medical imaging), so no derivation chain can be reduced.

full rationale

The target paper (arXiv:2603.23844, Language Models as Higher-Order Planning Formalizers) is available only as an abstract. That abstract states an empirical methods claim: standard NL-to-PDDL benchmarks may overstate LLM-as-Formalizer success because of near one-to-one mappings; the authors introduce harder “unraveling” variants of four domains, show direct formalizers fail to scale, and propose LLM-as-Higher-Order-Formalizer (LLM emits a compact program that expands into large PDDL) which improves performance by decoupling token budget from combinatorial growth. None of these steps is a mathematical derivation that reduces a “prediction” or “first-principles result” to its own inputs by construction. There are no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, no uniqueness theorems, no self-definitional equations, and no load-bearing self-citations visible in the abstract. The CACHEABLE full-manuscript block is an unrelated paper (3D-LLDM, arXiv:2603.23845 on synthetic MR imaging), so no experimental constructions, baselines, or citations from the planning paper can be inspected for reverse-engineering of unraveling instances or self-citation chains. Per the hard rules, circularity is only claimed when a specific reduction can be quoted and exhibited; none can. Score 0 with empty steps is therefore the correct, proportionate finding on the available text.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 2 invented entities

Abstract-only review of a methods paper. Load-bearing premises are domain assumptions about benchmarks and the utility of program-mediated formalization, not free parameters or invented physical entities. No fitted constants appear in the abstract.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Standard planning benchmarks often have a near one-to-one mapping from natural-language descriptions to PDDL, which overstates LLM-as-Formalizer success relative to real use cases.
    Stated as the observation motivating the work; not derived in the abstract.
  • ad hoc to paper Unraveling variants of four standard planning domains are valid stress tests for formalization scalability.
    The paper introduces these variants; their construction and representativeness are assumed to support the negative claim about formalizers and the positive claim about higher-order formalizers.
  • domain assumption A high-level program that captures recurrent logic can generate correct large PDDL and that classical solvers remain the right back-end.
    Core of the proposed paradigm; correctness of generated PDDL and solver completeness are taken as the evaluation path.
invented entities (2)
  • Unraveling problems
    purpose: Name and construct planning instances where succinct NL maps to combinatorially large PDDL to expose formalizer scaling failure.
    Defined by the paper as a new notion; independent evidence would be external adoption or real-world corpus statistics, not provided in the abstract.
  • LLM-as-Higher-Order-Formalizer
    purpose: Paradigm in which the LLM emits a program that generates PDDL, decoupling output length from formalization size.
    Named contribution of the paper; independent evidence would be open implementations and third-party replications, not present in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Language Models as Higher-Order Planning Formalizers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IVCCCXHE

@misc{pith2026260323844,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Language Models as Higher-Order Planning Formalizers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IVCCCXHE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.23844}
}
read the original abstract

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.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The performance of deep learning models has rapidly improved, frequently surpassing traditional methods across various domains

    INTRODUCTION Deep learning has achieved remarkable advancements in extracting relevant patterns from data and making precise decisions, particularly in image-based tasks such as classification and segmentation [1–4]. The performance of deep learning models has rapidly improved, frequently surpassing traditional methods across various domains. Generative m...

    arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This study introduced the 3D-LLDM designed to generate high- resolution synthetic MR volumes along with the corresponding seg- mentation labels. Leveraging ControlNet for spatial guidance, our model ensured anatomically consistent synthesis and outperformed conventional generative models, achieving the lowest FID score and improv...

  3. [3]

    RS-2024-00399936)

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by the IITP grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) under the AI Semiconductor Support Program (IITP-2023-RS-2023-00256081) and the Edge AI Semiconductor BMT Platform (No. RS-2024-00399936)

    2023

  4. [4]

    A review of the ap- plication of deep learning in medical image classification and segmentation,

    Lei Cai, Jingyang Gao, and Di Zhao, “A review of the ap- plication of deep learning in medical image classification and segmentation,”Annals of translational medicine, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 713, 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    Image seg- mentation using deep learning: A survey,

    Shervin Minaee, Yuri Boykov, Fatih Porikli, Antonio Plaza, Nasser Kehtarnavaz, and Demetri Terzopoulos, “Image seg- mentation using deep learning: A survey,”IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 3523–3542, 2021

    2021

  6. [6]

    A review on deep learning approaches to image classification and object segmentation,

    Xiaodong Liu Hao Wu, Qi Liu, “A review on deep learning approaches to image classification and object segmentation,” Computers, Materials & Continua, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 575–597, 2019

    2019

  7. [7]

    Advances in deep learning-based medical image analysis,

    Xiaoqing Liu, Kunlun Gao, Bo Liu, Chengwei Pan, Kongming Liang, Lifeng Yan, Jiechao Ma, Fujin He, Shu Zhang, Siyuan Pan, and Yizhou Yu, “Advances in deep learning-based medical image analysis,”Health Data Science, vol. 2021, pp. 8786793, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Ct to mri image translation using cyclegan: A deep learning approach for cross-modality medical imaging.,

    Anamika Jha and Hitoshi Iima, “Ct to mri image translation using cyclegan: A deep learning approach for cross-modality medical imaging.,” inICAART (3), 2024, pp. 951–957

    2024

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Synthetic ct generation from weakly paired mr images using cycle-consistent gan for mr-guided radiotherapy,

    Seung Kwan Kang, Hyun Joon An, Hyeongmin Jin, Jung- in Kim, Eui Kyu Chie, Jong Min Park, and Jae Sung Lee, “Synthetic ct generation from weakly paired mr images using cycle-consistent gan for mr-guided radiotherapy,”Biomedical engineering letters, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 263–271, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Deep gen- erative adversarial networks: Applications in musculoskeletal imaging,

    YiRang Shin, Jaemoon Yang, and Young Han Lee, “Deep gen- erative adversarial networks: Applications in musculoskeletal imaging,”Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. e200157, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Label-assemble: Leveraging multiple datasets with partial labels,

    Mintong Kang, Bowen Li, Zengle Zhu, Yongyi Lu, Elliot K Fishman, Alan Yuille, and Zongwei Zhou, “Label-assemble: Leveraging multiple datasets with partial labels,” in2023 IEEE 20th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  4. [12]

    Clip-driven universal model for organ segmentation and tumor detection,

    Jie Liu, Yixiao Zhang, Jie-Neng Chen, Junfei Xiao, Yongyi Lu, Bennett A Landman, Yixuan Yuan, Alan Yuille, Yucheng Tang, and Zongwei Zhou, “Clip-driven universal model for organ segmentation and tumor detection,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on comput...

    2023

  5. [13]

    High-resolution diabetic retinopathy image syn- thesis manipulated by grading and lesions,

    Yi Zhou, Xiaodong He, Shanshan Cui, Fan Zhu, Li Liu, and Ling Shao, “High-resolution diabetic retinopathy image syn- thesis manipulated by grading and lesions,” inMedical Im- age Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI

  6. [14]

    11766 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pp

    2019, vol. 11766 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 505–513, Springer

    2019

  7. [15]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models,

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala, “Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models,” inPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on com- puter vision, 2023, pp. 3836–3847

    2023

  8. [16]

    Hagan: Hybrid augmented generative adversarial network for medical image synthesis,

    Zhihan Ju, Wanting Zhou, Longteng Kong, Yu Chen, Yi Li, Zhenan Sun, and Caifeng Shan, “Hagan: Hybrid augmented generative adversarial network for medical image synthesis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04902, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” inInternational Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. Springer, 2015, pp. 234–241

    2015

  10. [18]

    Road ex- traction by deep residual u-net,

    Zhengxin Zhang, Qingjie Liu, and Yunhong Wang, “Road ex- traction by deep residual u-net,”IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 749–753, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Med-cdiff: Conditional medical image generation with dif- fusion models,

    Alex Ling Yu Hung, Kai Zhao, Haoxin Zheng, Ran Yan, Steven S Raman, Demetri Terzopoulos, and Kyunghyun Sung, “Med-cdiff: Conditional medical image generation with dif- fusion models,”Bioengineering, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 1258, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Diffusion models for medical image computing: A survey,

    Yaqing Shi, Abudukelimu Abulizi, Hao Wang, Ke Feng, Nihe- maiti Abudukelimu, Youli Su, and Halidanmu Abudukelimu, “Diffusion models for medical image computing: A survey,” Tsinghua Science and Technology, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 357–383, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Diffusion models in medical imaging: A comprehensive survey,

    Amirhossein Kazerouni, Ehsan Khodapanah Aghdam, Moein Heidari, Reza Azad, Mohsen Fayyaz, Ilker Hacihaliloglu, and Dorit Merhof, “Diffusion models in medical imaging: A comprehensive survey,”Medical image analysis, vol. 88, pp. 102846, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models,

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel, “Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Diffusion models in vision: A survey,

    Florinel-Alin Croitoru, Vlad Hondru, Radu Tudor Ionescu, and Mubarak Shah, “Diffusion models in vision: A survey,”IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 10850–10869, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Generatect: Text-conditional generation of 3d chest ct volumes,

    Ibrahim Ethem Hamamci, Sezgin Er, Anjany Sekuboyina, Enis Simsar, Alperen Tezcan, Ayse Gulnihan Simsek, Sevval Nil Esirgun, Furkan Almas, Irem Do˘gan, Muhammed Furkan Das- delen, et al., “Generatect: Text-conditional generation of 3d chest ct volumes,” inEuropean Conference on...

    2024

  17. [25]

    3d mri synthesis with slice-based latent diffusion models: Improving tumor segmentation tasks in data-scarce regimes,

    Aghiles Kebaili, J ´erˆome Lapuyade-Lahorgue, Pierre Vera, and Su Ruan, “3d mri synthesis with slice-based latent diffusion models: Improving tumor segmentation tasks in data-scarce regimes,” in2024 IEEE International Symposium on Biomed- ical Imaging (ISBI). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–5

    2024

  18. [26]

    Synthetic tumors make ai segment tumors better,

    Qixin Hu, Junfei Xiao, Yixiong Chen, Shuwen Sun, Jie-Neng Chen, Alan Yuille, and Zongwei Zhou, “Synthetic tumors make ai segment tumors better,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.14845, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    From pixel to cancer: Cellular automata in computed tomography,

    Yuxiang Lai, Xiaoxi Chen, Angtian Wang, Alan Yuille, and Zongwei Zhou, “From pixel to cancer: Cellular automata in computed tomography,” inInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interven- tion. Springer, 2024, pp. 36–46

    2024

  20. [28]

    Learning from synthetic ct images via test-time training for liver tumor segmentation,

    Fei Lyu, Mang Ye, Andy J Ma, Terry Cheuk-Fung Yip, Grace Lai-Hung Wong, and Pong C Yuen, “Learning from synthetic ct images via test-time training for liver tumor segmentation,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 2510–2520, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Free- tumor: Advance tumor segmentation via large-scale tumor syn- thesis,

    Linshan Wu, Jiaxin Zhuang, Xuefeng Ni, and Hao Chen, “Free- tumor: Advance tumor segmentation via large-scale tumor syn- thesis,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01264, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Self-supervised tumor seg- mentation with sim2real adaptation,

    Xiaoman Zhang, Weidi Xie, Chaoqin Huang, Ya Zhang, Xin Chen, Qi Tian, and Yanfeng Wang, “Self-supervised tumor seg- mentation with sim2real adaptation,”IEEE Journal of Biomed- ical and Health Informatics, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 4373–4384, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer, “High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 10684–10695

    2022

  24. [32]

    Auto-encoding varia- tional bayes,

    Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling, “Auto-encoding varia- tional bayes,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Monai: An open-source framework for deep learning in healthcare,

    M Jorge Cardoso, Wenqi Li, Richard Brown, Nic Ma, Eric Kerfoot, Yiheng Wang, Benjamin Murrey, Andriy Myronenko, Can Zhao, Dong Yang, et al., “Monai: An open-source framework for deep learning in healthcare,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.02701, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Med3d: Trans- fer learning for 3d medical image analysis,

    Sihong Chen, Kai Ma, and Yefeng Zheng, “Med3d: Trans- fer learning for 3d medical image analysis,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.00625, 2019

    1904 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 13, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.