Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise as robotic planners but often struggle with long-horizon and complex tasks, especially in specialized environments requiring external knowledge. While hierarchical planning and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) address some of these challenges, they remain insufficient on their own and a deeper integration is required for achieving more reliable systems. To this end, we propose a neuro-symbolic approach that enhances LLMs-based planners with Knowledge Graph-based RAG for hierarchical plan generation. This method decomposes complex tasks into manageable subtasks, further expanded into executable atomic action sequences. To ensure formal correctness and proper decomposition, we integrate a Symbolic Validator, which also functions as a failure detector by aligning expected and observed world states. Our evaluation against baseline methods demonstrates the consistent significant advantages of integrating hierarchical planning, symbolic verification, and RAG across tasks of varying complexity and different LLMs. Additionally, our experimental setup and novel metrics not only validate our approach for complex planning but also serve as a tool for assessing LLMs’ reasoning and compositional capabilities. Code available at https://github.com/corneliocristina/HVR.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized the field of Natural Language Processing thanks to their ability to reuse knowledge acquired on massive text corpora on a wide variety of downstream tasks, with minimal (if any) tuning steps. At the same time, it has been repeatedly shown that LLMs lack systematic generalization, which allows to extrapolate the learned statistical regularities outside the training distribution. In this work, we offer a systematic benchmarking of GPT-4, one of the most advanced LLMs available, on three algorithmic tasks characterized by the possibility to control the problem difficulty with two parameters. We compare the performance of GPT-4 with that of its predecessor (GPT-3.5) and with a variant of the Transformer-Encoder architecture recently introduced to solve similar tasks, the Neural Data Router. We find that the deployment of advanced prompting techniques allows GPT-4 to reach superior accuracy on all tasks, demonstrating that state-of-the-art LLMs constitute a very strong baseline also in challenging tasks that require systematic generalization.

Modern neural network architectures still struggle to learn algorithmic procedures that require to systematically apply compositional rules to solve out-of-distribution problem instances. In this work, we focus on formula simplification problems, a class of synthetic benchmarks used to study the systematic generalization capabilities of neural architectures. We propose a modular architecture designed to learn a general procedure for solving nested mathematical formulas by only relying on a minimal set of training examples. Inspired by rewriting systems, a classic framework in symbolic artificial intelligence, we include in the architecture three specialized and interacting modules: the Selector, trained to identify solvable sub-expressions; the Solver, mapping sub-expressions to their values; and the Combiner, replacing sub-expressions in the original formula with the solution provided by the Solver. We benchmark our system against the Neural Data Router, a recent model specialized for systematic generalization, and a state-of-the-art large language model (GPT-4) probed with advanced prompting strategies. We demonstrate that our approach achieves a higher degree of out-of-distribution generalization compared to these alternative approaches on three different types of formula simplification problems, and we discuss its limitations by analyzing its failures.

While much attention has been devoted to the causes of opinion change, little is known about its consequences. Our study moves a first step in this direction by looking at Reddit, and in particular to the subreddit r/ChangeMyView, a community dedicated to debating one’s own opinions on a wide array of topics. We analyze changes in online information consumption behavior that arise after a self-reported opinion change, by looking at the participation to a set of sociopolitical communities. We find that people who self-report an opinion change are significantly more likely to change their future participation in a specific subset of those communities. Specifically, there is a significant association (Pearson r = 0.46) between using propaganda-like language in a community and the increase in chances of leaving it. Comparable results (Pearson r = 0.39) hold for the opposite direction, i.e., joining these same communities. In addition, the textual content of the post associated with opinion change is indicative of which communities will be joined or left: a predictive model based only on the text of this post can pinpoint these communities with an average precision@5 of 0.20. Our results establish a link between opinion change and information consumption, and highlight how online propagandistic communities act as a first gateway to internalize a shift in one’s sociopolitical opinion.