CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Mar 26, 2026

DUPLEX: Agentic Dual-System Planning via LLM-Driven Information Extraction

arXiv AI Archived Mar 26, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2603.23909v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) provide semantic flexibility for robotic task planning, their susceptibility to hallucination and logical inconsistency limits their reliability in long-horizon domains. To bridge the gap between unstructured environments and rigorous plan synthesis, we propose DUPLEX, an agentic dual-system neuro-symbolic architecture that strictly confines the LLM to schema-guided information extraction rather than end-to-end pl

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 25 Mar 2026] DUPLEX: Agentic Dual-System Planning via LLM-Driven Information Extraction Keru Hua, Ding Wang, Yaoying Gu, Xiaoguang Ma While Large Language Models (LLMs) provide semantic flexibility for robotic task planning, their susceptibility to hallucination and logical inconsistency limits their reliability in long-horizon domains. To bridge the gap between unstructured environments and rigorous plan synthesis, we propose DUPLEX, an agentic dual-system neuro-symbolic architecture that strictly confines the LLM to schema-guided information extraction rather than end-to-end planning or code generation. In our framework, a feed-forward Fast System utilizes a lightweight LLM to extract entities, relations etc. from natural language, deterministically mapping them into a Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL) problem file for a classical symbolic planner. To resolve complex or underspecified scenarios, a Slow System is activated exclusively upon planning failure, leveraging solver diagnostics to drive a high-capacity LLM in iterative reflection and repair. Extensive evaluations across 12 classical and household planning domains demonstrate that DUPLEX significantly outperforms existing end-to-end and hybrid LLM baselines in both success rate and reliability. These results confirm that The key is not to make the LLM plan better, but to restrict the LLM to the part it is good at - structured semantic grounding - and leave logical plan synthesis to a symbolic planner. Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2603.23909 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2603.23909v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.23909 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Ding Wang [view email] [v1] Wed, 25 Mar 2026 03:57:44 UTC (233 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-03 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
    Mar 26, 2026
    Archived
    Mar 26, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗