← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Tree-Planner: Efficient Close-loop Task Planning with Large Language Models

Mengkang Hu, Yao Mu, Xinmiao Chelsey Yu, Mingyu Ding, Shiguang Wu, Wenqi Shao, Qiguang Chen, Bin Wang, Yu Qiao, Ping Luo

robotics & planningEmbodied AgentsLarge Language ModelsTask Planning
56.00100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.27)
66.80100
Mimo
band ≈ ±19 pct pts (from σ = 0.38)
39.50100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.39)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

Abstract

This paper studies close-loop task planning, which refers to the process of generating a sequence of skills (a plan) to accomplish a specific goal while adapting the plan based on real-time observations. Recently, prompting Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate actions iteratively has become a prevalent paradigm due to its superior performance and user-friendliness. However, this paradigm is plagued by two inefficiencies: high token consumption and redundant error correction, both of which hinder its scalability for large-scale testing and applications. To address these issues, we propose Tree-Planner, which reframes task planning with LLMs into three distinct phases: plan sampling, action tree construction, and grounded deciding. Tree-Planner starts by using an LLM to sample a set of potential plans before execution, followed by the aggregation of them to form an action tree. Finally, the LLM performs a top-down decision-making process on the tree, taking into account real-time environmental information. Experiments show that Tree-Planner achieves state-of-the-art performance while maintaining high efficiency. By decomposing LLM queries into a single plan-sampling call and multiple grounded-deciding calls, a considerable part of the prompt are less likely to be repeatedly consumed. As a result, token consumption is reduced by 92.2\% compared to the previously best-performing model. Additionally, by enabling backtracking on the action tree as needed, the correction process becomes more flexible, leading to a 40.5\% decrease in error corrections.

Author context

Most prolific author: 27 submissions (credibility 0.08).

Delta if applied: -2.3 percentile

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 40)