Papers › Robust Planning with Compound LLM Architectures: An LLM-Modulo Approach

Robust Planning with Compound LLM Architectures: An LLM-Modulo Approach

20 Nov 2024arXiv:2411.14484archive 2025-07-28

Atharva Gundawar, Karthik Valmeekam, Mudit Verma, Subbarao Kambhampati

Previous work has attempted to boost Large Language Model (LLM) performance on planning and scheduling tasks through a variety of prompt engineering techniques. While these methods can work within the distributions tested, they are neither robust nor predictable. This limitation can be addressed through compound LLM architectures where LLMs work in conjunction with other components to ensure reliability. In this paper, we present a technical evaluation of a compound LLM architecture--the LLM-Modulo framework. In this framework, an LLM is paired with a complete set of sound verifiers that validate its output, re-prompting it if it fails. This approach ensures that the system can never output any fallacious output, and therefore that every output generated is guaranteed correct--something previous techniques have not been able to claim. Our results, evaluated across four scheduling domains, demonstrate significant performance gains with the LLM-Modulo framework using various models. Additionally, we explore modifications to the base configuration of the framework and assess their impact on overall system performance.

PaperPDFCode

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Language ModelingLanguage ModellingLarge Language ModelPrompt EngineeringScheduling

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

BASESET

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections