arxiv-2608-19661 SRC-0102 · paper

World-Model-Grounded LLM Planning for AUV and ASV Navigation Near Offshore Wind Farms

Created: 2026-08-20 · Ingested: 2026-09-15

https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.19661

Large language models can turn a natural-language mission into a sequence of robot actions, but they do not have a sense of physics: they cannot judge how long a command should run, or whether it will make the robot drift into an obstacle. We proposed the use of a world model to expand the capabilities of Large Language model-based planners. Our method has three components: a physics-grounded neural world model, a three-phase gradient-based trajectory optimizer, and a Model Predictive Controller (MPC)-style closed-loop replanner with a trust-region guard. The language model decides what to do,

In brief

An LLM that picks an ordered sequence of macro-actions but is given no numeric durations, with a learned physics surrogate choosing the timings, goes from 0% to 100% goal-reach on marine navigation missions. The division matters: the language model contributed the action topology, not the physics.

The system pairs gemma4:26b (local, temperature 0.3, called once per mission) with an analytical Fossen simulator plus a residual MLP, a 3-phase duration optimizer, and an MPC-style replanner with a trust-region guard. 5 inspection missions each for a 6-DOF BlueROV2 AUV and a 3-DOF Blueboat ASV, in an analytical simulator and in GazeboSim.

In the analytical simulator the grounded planners reach 1.00 goal-reach with 0.0 collisions versus 0.00 and 27.2 (AUV) / 24.0 (ASV) collisions for the raw LLM plan. In GazeboSim, after residual fine-tuning on 250 k transitions, goal error falls 70-82% (ASV) and roughly 93% (AUV). Removing the trust-region guard drops slalom goal-reach from 100% to 10%.

All 4 planners share one LLM and prompt, so the optimizer's contribution is isolated; the guard is ablated. But there is 1 model, no real hardware, N=3 and N=10 trials, and GazeboSim is still a simulator. The ASV's 1 m success threshold holds at only 0.20.

On LLM competence: skeletons were valid in 200/200 AUV and 197/200 ASV trials, and no skeleton needed topological repair on the ASV, but the optimizer cannot fix a wrong topology at all.

Treat LLM output as a discrete plan sketch and put a differentiable dynamics model between it and the actuators.

Written from the abstract by claude-opus-5 on 2026-09-15, 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.

supportsFor marine vehicle navigation, an LLM asked only to emit an ordered macro-action skeleton produces syntactically and topologically usable plans but cannot set physically feasible step durations; letting a differentiable physics surrogate optimize the durations turns plans that collide on every mission into collision-free ones, while wrong skeleton topology remains unrecoverable because the optimizer only rescales timings.