arxiv-2503-08508 SRC-0536 · paperLightPlanner: Unleashing the Reasoning Capabilities of Lightweight Large Language Models in Task Planning
Weijie Zhou, Manli Tao, Chaoyang Zhao, Honghui Dong, Ming Tang, Jin-Qiao Wang
Created: 2025-03-11 · Ingested: 2026-09-23
https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.08508(opens in a new tab)In recent years, lightweight large language models (LLMs) have garnered significant attention in the robotics field due to their low computational resource requirements and suitability for edge deployment. However, in task planning—particularly for complex tasks that involve dynamic semantic logic reasoning—lightweight LLMs have underperformed. To address this limitation, we propose a novel task planner, LightPlanner, which enhances the performance of lightweight LLMs in complex task planning by fully leveraging their reasoning capabilities. Unlike conventional planners that use fixed skill te
In brief
A 1.5B model fine-tuned to emit parameterized skill calls instead of fixed skill templates can out-plan GPT-4-based planners on robot tasks that need dynamic semantic reasoning, like resolving "largest" or "leftmost" from detection bounding boxes.
LightPlanner fine-tunes Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct on LightPlan-40k, 40,000 single-step decision samples derived from 60 hand-annotated tasks expanded to 6,000 via GPT-4, with 13 skill functions. Evaluation is on a real UR3 arm with a D435 camera over 30 tasks repeated 3 times, 90 trials, split into simple semantic mapping and dynamic semantic reasoning, with chains of 2-8 steps.
On dynamic semantic reasoning, LightPlanner-1.5B hits 100.0 SR short-term, 79.5% SR medium-term against 71.4% for CoPAL, and 66.1% long-term against 54.1% for CAPE. Ablations in long-term tasks: removing dynamic skill control drops SR 7.5%, removing hierarchical reasoning drops it from 66.1% to 60.3%, removing memory drops 5.0% and adds 4 seconds. On 10 unseen 8-step task categories it scores 62.6 SR vs 53.8 for CoPAL and 42.0 for ReAct-3B.
Baselines ReAct and MLDT were retrained on the same LightPlan-40k data, which isolates architecture from data; the GPT-4 planners were run with original prompts, so prompt quality is not matched. Evaluation is self-run, 1 robot, 1 model family, and the authors note failures in dynamic environments.
If you are deploying planners on edge hardware, this argues the bottleneck is action-interface design, not parameter count.
Written from the abstract by claude-opus-5 on 2026-10-24, with every figure checked against it. Not a substitute for the paper.
Referenced by
Claims in this catalog that draw on this source, and whether as support or counterpoint.
No claims cite this yet.