Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Exploring Plan Space through Conversation: An Agentic Framework for LLM-Mediated Explanations in Planning

Guilhem Fouilhé, Rebecca Eifler, Antonin Poché, Sylvie Thiébaux, Nicholas Asher · Mar 2, 2026 · Citations: 0

General Multi Agent Pairwise Preference
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Mar 2, 2026, 4:58 PM

Recent

Extraction refreshed

Mar 7, 2026, 1:01 PM

Fresh

Extraction source

Persisted extraction

Confidence 0.50

Abstract

When automating plan generation for a real-world sequential decision problem, the goal is often not to replace the human planner, but to facilitate an iterative reasoning and elicitation process, where the human's role is to guide the AI planner according to their preferences and expertise. In this context, explanations that respond to users' questions are crucial to improve their understanding of potential solutions and increase their trust in the system. To enable natural interaction with such a system, we present a multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) architecture that is agnostic to the explanation framework and enables user- and context-dependent interactive explanations. We also describe an instantiation of this framework for goal-conflict explanations, which we use to conduct a user study comparing the LLM-powered interaction with a baseline template-based explanation interface.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.

Trust level

Moderate

Eval-Fit Score

40/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Moderate

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

strong

Pairwise Preference

Confidence: Moderate Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Directly usable for protocol triage.

Evidence snippet: When automating plan generation for a real-world sequential decision problem, the goal is often not to replace the human planner, but to facilitate an iterative reasoning and elicitation process, where the human's role is to guide the AI planner according to their preferences and expertise.

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

Validate eval design from full paper text.

Evidence snippet: When automating plan generation for a real-world sequential decision problem, the goal is often not to replace the human planner, but to facilitate an iterative reasoning and elicitation process, where the human's role is to guide the AI planner according to their preferences and expertise.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: When automating plan generation for a real-world sequential decision problem, the goal is often not to replace the human planner, but to facilitate an iterative reasoning and elicitation process, where the human's role is to guide the AI planner according to their preferences and expertise.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: When automating plan generation for a real-world sequential decision problem, the goal is often not to replace the human planner, but to facilitate an iterative reasoning and elicitation process, where the human's role is to guide the AI planner according to their preferences and expertise.

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No metric anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: When automating plan generation for a real-world sequential decision problem, the goal is often not to replace the human planner, but to facilitate an iterative reasoning and elicitation process, where the human's role is to guide the AI planner according to their preferences and expertise.

Rater Population

strong

Domain Experts

Confidence: Moderate Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Helpful for staffing comparability.

Evidence snippet: When automating plan generation for a real-world sequential decision problem, the goal is often not to replace the human planner, but to facilitate an iterative reasoning and elicitation process, where the human's role is to guide the AI planner according to their preferences and expertise.

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Pairwise Preference
  • Rater population: Domain Experts
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: General
  • Extraction source: Persisted extraction

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: Multi Agent
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.50
  • Flags: runtime_fallback_extraction

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

When automating plan generation for a real-world sequential decision problem, the goal is often not to replace the human planner, but to facilitate an iterative reasoning and elicitation process, where the human's role is to guide the AI… HFEPX signals include Pairwise Preference, Multi Agent with confidence 0.50. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Mar 7, 2026, 1:01 PM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • When automating plan generation for a real-world sequential decision problem, the goal is often not to replace the human planner, but to facilitate an iterative reasoning and…
  • To enable natural interaction with such a system, we present a multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) architecture that is agnostic to the explanation framework and enables user-…

Researcher Actions

  • Compare its human-feedback setup against pairwise and rubric hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Verify metric definitions before comparing against your eval pipeline.

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Extraction confidence is probabilistic and should be validated for critical decisions.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • When automating plan generation for a real-world sequential decision problem, the goal is often not to replace the human planner, but to facilitate an iterative reasoning and elicitation process, where the human's role is to guide the AI…
  • To enable natural interaction with such a system, we present a multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) architecture that is agnostic to the explanation framework and enables user- and context-dependent interactive explanations.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • When automating plan generation for a real-world sequential decision problem, the goal is often not to replace the human planner, but to facilitate an iterative reasoning and elicitation process, where the human's role is to guide the AI…
  • To enable natural interaction with such a system, we present a multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) architecture that is agnostic to the explanation framework and enables user- and context-dependent interactive explanations.

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Pairwise Preference

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.

Post a Job Get a Quote