CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Jun 29, 2026

Grounded Iterative Language Planning: How Parameterized World Models Reduce Hallucination Propagation in LLM Agents

arXiv AI Archived Jun 29, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2606.27806v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: World models for language agents come in two useful forms. An agent-based world model calls an LLM API and reasons flexibly in language, but its errors appear as hallucinated state changes that are hard to score with ordinary regression losses. A parameterized world model is a trained transition predictor; its errors are easier to measure with quantities such as NodeMSE, delta accuracy, and validity accuracy, but it is usually weaker as a standalon

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 26 Jun 2026] Grounded Iterative Language Planning: How Parameterized World Models Reduce Hallucination Propagation in LLM Agents Xinyuan Song, Zekun Cai World models for language agents come in two useful forms. An agent-based world model calls an LLM API and reasons flexibly in language, but its errors appear as hallucinated state changes that are hard to score with ordinary regression losses. A parameterized world model is a trained transition predictor; its errors are easier to measure with quantities such as NodeMSE, delta accuracy, and validity accuracy, but it is usually weaker as a standalone planner. We compare these two families on four graph-structured planning benchmarks and introduce operational hallucination metrics for the agent-based case. The comparison motivates \textbf{Grounded Iterative Language Planning} (GILP), which trains only a small parameterized backbone and combines it with API-based agent reasoning. The backbone supplies valid actions, predicted state deltas, risk, and value; the LLM drafts an action and imagined delta; and a consistency gate asks for revision when the two disagree. On real GPT-4o-mini calls, GILP reduces hallucinated-state rate from 0.176 to 0.035. In calibrated simulator ablations, it raises success from 0.668 to 0.838 while adding only ~22% extra LLM calls. Comments: Under Review Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2606.27806 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2606.27806v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.27806 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Zekun Cai [view email] [v1] Fri, 26 Jun 2026 07:45:15 UTC (1,414 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-06 Change to browse by: cs References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Jun 29, 2026
    Archived
    Jun 29, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗