From Assumptions to Actions: Turning LLM Reasoning into Uncertainty-Aware Planning for Embodied Agents
SeungWon Seo, SooBin Lim, SeongRae Noh, Haneul Kim, HyeongYeop Kang

TL;DR
This paper presents PCE, a framework that transforms LLM reasoning into a structured decision tree for uncertainty-aware planning in embodied multi-agent environments, reducing communication costs and improving success rates.
Contribution
The introduction of PCE, a novel framework that converts LLM reasoning traces into decision trees for efficient, uncertainty-aware multi-agent planning without heavy communication.
Findings
PCE outperforms communication-based baselines in success rate and efficiency.
Scaling model capacity or reasoning depth benefits PCE performance.
PCE produces more efficient and trustworthy communication patterns.
Abstract
Embodied agents operating in multi-agent, partially observable, and decentralized environments must plan and act despite pervasive uncertainty about hidden objects and collaborators' intentions. Recent advances in applying Large Language Models (LLMs) to embodied agents have addressed many long-standing challenges, such as high-level goal decomposition and online adaptation. Yet, uncertainty is still primarily mitigated through frequent inter-agent communication. This incurs substantial token and time costs, and can disrupt established workflows, when human partners are involved. We introduce PCE, a Planner-Composer-Evaluator framework that converts the fragmented assumptions latent in LLM reasoning traces into a structured decision tree. Internal nodes encode environment assumptions and leaves map to actions; each path is then scored by scenario likelihood, goal-directed gain, and…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
1. It is interesting to introduce an uncertainty-handling mechanism to this field. PCE explicitly extracts and evaluates the LLM’s latent assumptions and plan with structured decision-tree. 2. The experimental results show strong gains in success rate and step efficiency on two benchmarks, with comparable computational cost. It is also good to include human evaluations. 3. The ablations on reasoning and different LLMs also show the consistency of performance gain.
1. It is unclear how the hyperparameters were chosen. The authors set D = 3, alpha = 1, beta = 1, lambda = 1, Kaction = 10, Kmessage= 3 empirically, but no according further explaination or ablation is provided. 2. The related work section should discuss tree-search-based methods (e.g., CoTS) more clearly. The authors need to clearly articulate how their method differs conceptually and why PCE is needed beyond existing tree reasoning or search frameworks. 3. The paper would benefit from more
- **Originality and Significance**: The paper's core contribution is novel and insightful. Instead of simply using an LLM's reasoning trace (like Chain-of-Thought), the PCE framework performs meta-reasoning on the trace itself. The idea of "turning LLM reasoning into... planning" by extracting, structuring, and formally evaluating latent assumptions is a clever way to operationalize the implicit knowledge within LLMs for decision-making under uncertainty. - **Problem Formulation**: The work ad
- **Scalability of the "Multi-Agent" Claim**: The experiments are exclusively conducted in two-agent settings. While technically "multi-agent," this does not sufficiently support the paper's broader claims of solving uncertainty in "multi-agent... environments". The complexity of tracking collaborator intentions and partial observations scales combinatorially with the number of agents. It is unclear how the Composer's decision tree and the Evaluator's scoring would handle branching on assumption
- The paper effectively identifies the communication overhead problem. - User study results showing that PCE produces more efficient communication patterns demonstrate practical value. - Consistent improvements across GPT-4o mini, GPT-OSS:20B, and Gemma3:4B suggest broad applicability.
- The distinction between the proposed methodology and existing multi-agent task planning techniques remains unclear. In particular, the paper needs to articulate clear differences from approaches like ProAgent, CoELA, REVECA, and CaPo, which also perform tasks through multi-agent communication. - Furthermore, while the main contributions are presented as the Planner-Composer-Evaluator structure and the decision tree-based techniques in the Composer and Evaluator, these appear to be applications
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMultimodal Machine Learning Applications · AI-based Problem Solving and Planning · Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
