MINT: Minimal Information Neuro-Symbolic Tree for Objective-Driven Knowledge-Gap Reasoning and Active Elicitation
Zeyu Fang, Mahdi Imani, Tian Lan
Abstract
Joint planning through language-based interactions is a key area of human-AI teaming. Planning problems in the open world often involve various aspects of incomplete information and unknowns, e.g., objects involved, human goals/intents -- thus leading to knowledge gaps in joint planning. We consider the problem of discovering optimal interaction strategies for AI agents to actively elicit human inputs in object-driven planning. To this end, we propose Minimal Information Neuro-Symbolic Tree (MINT) to reason about the impact of knowledge gaps and leverage self-play with MINT to optimize the AI agent’s elicitation strategies and queries. More precisely, MINT builds a symbolic tree by making propositions of possible human-AI interactions and by consulting a neural planning policy to estimate the uncertainty in planning outcomes caused by remaining knowledge gaps. Finally, we leverage LLM to search and summarize MINT’s reasoning process and curate a set of queries to optimally elicit human inputs for best planning performance. By considering a family of extended Markov decision processes with knowledge gaps, we analyze the return guarantee for a given MINT with active human elicitation. Our evaluation on three benchmarks involving unseen/unknown objects of increasing realism shows that MINT-based planning attains near-expert returns by issuing a limited number of questions per task while achieving significantly improved rewards and success rates.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext beff99da-ffdc-4294-b1a7-3816966a634cCited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on20
- Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward ModelRafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D. Manning et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 10,924 citations
- Language Models as Zero-Shot Planners: Extracting Actionable Knowledge for Embodied AgentsWenlong Huang, Pieter Abbeel, Deepak Pathak, Igor MordatchICML 2022 · 1,539 citations
- TravelPlanner: A Benchmark for Real-World Planning with Language AgentsJian Xie, Kai Zhang, Jiangjie Chen, Tinghui Zhu et al.ICML 2024 · 376 citations
- Why Generalization in RL is Difficult: Epistemic POMDPs and Implicit Partial ObservabilityDibya Ghosh, Jad Rahme, Aviral Kumar, Amy Zhang et al.NeurIPS 2021 · 176 citations
- Recurrent Model-Free RL Can Be a Strong Baseline for Many POMDPsTianwei Ni, Benjamin Eysenbach, Ruslan SalakhutdinovICML 2022 · 162 citations
Related papers
- MINT: Evaluating LLMs in Multi-turn Interaction with Tools and Language FeedbackXingyao Wang, Zihan Wang, Jiateng Liu, Yangyi Chen et al.ICLR 2024 · 308 citations
- Towards Reliable Code-as-Policies: A Neuro-Symbolic Framework for Embodied Task PlanningSanghyun Ahn, Wonje Choi, Junyong Lee, Jinwoo Park et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 14 citations
- Opt-Miner: Empowering Information-Seeking Agent with Tree-Guided Data Synthesis for Optimization ModelingHaoyang Liu, Yuyang Cai, Jie Wang, Xiongwei Han et al.ICML 2026
- Neuro-Symbolic Procedural Planning with Commonsense PromptingYujie Lu, Weixi Feng, Wanrong Zhu, Wenda Xu et al.ICLR 2023 · 3 citations
- MOTIF: Multi-strategy Optimization via Turn-based Interactive FrameworkNguyen Viet Tuan Kiet, Tung Dao, Cong Dao Tran, Huynh Thi Thanh BinhAAAI 2026 · 1 citation
