Language Model Planners do not Scale, but do Formalizers?

Recent work shows overwhelming evidence that LLMs, even those trained to scale their reasoning trace, perform unsatisfactorily when solving planning problems too complex. Whether the same conclusion holds for LLM formalizers that generate solver-oriented programs remains unknown. We systematically show that LLM formalizers greatly out-scale LLM planners, some retaining perfect accuracy in the classic BlocksWorld domain with a huge state space of size up to $10^{165}$. While performance of smaller LLM formalizers degrades with problem complexity, we show that a divide-and-conquer formalizing technique can greatly improve its robustness. Finally, we introduce unraveling problems where one line of problem description realistically corresponds to exponentially many lines of formal language such as the Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL), greatly challenging LLM formalizers. We tackle this challenge by introducing a new paradigm, namely LLM-as-higher-order-formalizer, where an LLM generates a program generator. This decouples token output from the combinatorial explosion of the underlying formalization and search space.

RbtAct: Rebuttal as Supervision for Actionable Review Feedback Generation

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used across the scientific workflow, including to draft peer-review reports. However, many AI-generated reviews are superficial and insufficiently actionable, leaving authors without concrete, implementable guidance and motivating the gap this work addresses. We propose RbtAct, which targets actionable review feedback generation and places existing peer review rebuttal at the center of learning. Rebuttals show which reviewer comments led to concrete revisions or specific plans, and which were only defended. Building on this insight, we leverage rebuttal as implicit supervision to directly optimize a feedback generator for actionability. To support this objective, we propose a new task called perspective-conditioned segment-level review feedback generation, in which the model is required to produce a single focused comment based on the complete paper and a specified perspective such as experiments and writing. We also build a large dataset named RMR-75K that maps review segments to the rebuttal segments that address them, with perspective labels and impact categories that order author uptake. We then train the Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct model with supervised fine-tuning on review segments followed by preference optimization using rebuttal derived pairs. Experiments with human experts and LLM-as-a-judge show consistent gains in actionability and specificity over strong baselines while maintaining grounding and relevance.