Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.03312

Optimal Planning in a Dynamic World

Abstract

Background: We address the problem of planning when the set of feasible states or actions changes over time. For example, in the problem of path planning among moving obstacles (sometimes known as SIPP), the feasibility of being at a particular location can change as the obstacles move. Or, the action of boarding a particular train is feasible only while it is stopped at the station. This dynamism means that the optimal plan and its duration can change depending on when execution begins. In practice, execution start time is often unknown until planning has completed or another agent gives the go-ahead. However, most prior planning work either ignores dynamism or assumes a known start time. This makes it straightforward to assess state and action feasibility but is impractical for some applications. Objectives: In this paper, we relax the assumption of a known start time. We define the setting of {\em any-start-time planning} and provide algorithms for it. Methods: We present a data structure called a compound arrival time function (cATF) that compactly encodes the optimal plan as a function of start time. We provide general-purpose planning algorithms, based on heuristic graph search, that assemble cATFs by propagating functions along edges instead of scalar costs. Results: We prove that the size of a cATF is at most linear in the problem size. An experimental evaluation of an implementation for the specific problem of SIPP shows that, on difficult problems, agents that rely on replanning often fail, while any-start-time algorithms using cATFs can quickly look up the optimal plan once the execution start time is known. Conclusions: By enabling efficient representations and reasoning for time-dependent plans, this work provides a foundation for planning in dynamic worlds.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Devin Wild Thomas, Solomon Eyal Shimony, Wheeler Ruml, Erez Karpas, Shahaf S. Shperberg, Andrew Coles. 2026-10-02. Optimal Planning in a Dynamic World. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.03312

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

AstroAgentBench: Evaluating Agentic Planning on Space Mission Planning Tasks

Recent LLM-for-Space systems address mission planning, scheduling, operations support, simulator control, and autonomy, but their evaluations use different task contracts, control settings, simulators, and success criteria. We introduce AstroAgentBench, a seven-family benchmark for executable space mission planning in the domains of scheduling, observation planning, constellation design, and relay support. For each case, an agent submits a planning artifact that is checked by an external verifier for schema, timing, geometry, resources, and mission value. Results report validity and normalized scores, with comparisons to task-specific solver references. Across five LLM agent systems and 35 held-out cases, the strongest systems approach or exceed solver-reference scores on several families, while weaker systems often fail to produce high-value valid plans and even strong systems lose quality on geometric, product-level, or design-heavy tasks. Trace analyses separate two failure points: task-contract misformulation and weak solution construction. Successful runs instead calibrate agent-written implementations against verifier feedback and adapt search to case-specific structure. Ablations show that procedure injection and memory accumulation help selectively, when they supply the missing formulation, calibration, or search support.

cs.AI↗

LPS-Bench: Benchmarking Safety Awareness of Computer-Use Agents in Long-Horizon Planning under Benign and Adversarial Scenarios

Computer-use agents (CUAs) execute multi-stage tasks through tools, where an early unsafe decision can propagate to consequential actions. Evaluating only final outcomes can miss such decisions, while constructing executable environments for new tasks can make benchmark expansion costly. We present LPS-Bench, a benchmark of long-horizon planning safety in MCP-style tool workflows under benign requests and adversarial steering. A template-guided multi-agent pipeline generates user instructions, simulated toolkits, and case-specific safety criteria, followed by human review. This design supports scalable case expansion without building a separate application environment for every test case. LPS-Bench comprises 570 cases derived from 65 scenarios across 7 task domains and 9 planning-risk types, with representative cases additionally adapted to reusable skills. An LLM-based evaluator applies case-specific criteria to complete interaction records, examining tool choices, arguments, and responses to environmental feedback throughout execution. Evaluations of 13 LLM agents reveal persistent failures in both benign and adversarial settings. Prompt-based interventions yield model-dependent gains, but substantial safety failures remain.

cs.AI↗

On the Tip of the Tongue: Why LLMs Hallucinate Answers They Can Decode

A language model can give the wrong answer even when the correct answer is decodable from its intermediate states. To study this gap between decodability and selection, we distinguish \textit{read} from \textit{write} at the first answer token. Read asks whether the gold token can be decoded from intermediate residual states under same-relation decoy controls. Write asks whether the final readout ranks that token first among content tokens. Under three different readers, with a randomized-label control, a substantial fraction of failures remain readable while another content token is selected. We explain this through the selection margin at the final readout, the difference between the answer logit and the logit of its strongest alternative, which is answer support minus alternative support, and can also be split into a context-averaged baseline linked to token frequency and an item-specific term. Setting the answer support to the level typical of successful generations is sufficient to recover first-token selection for the majority of failures in most of the models we study; the original alternative remains ahead in most remaining failures under this edit, and this outcome follows directly from the readout geometry. Removing the frequency direction alone shifts selection but rarely recovers the answer. Prompt variants of the same fact that succeed supply support that transfers to failing variants through the residual stream and through late MLP outputs, with less consistent effects through late attention. First-token recovery leaves most full answers wrong, which limits the recovery achieved by these edits and separates three things that are easily conflated, decodability, recoverability, and generation.

cs.AI↗