Rico, Francisco Martín, González, Esther Aguado, Olivo, Francisco Miguel Moreno, Rodríguez, Rodrigo Pérez, Hernández, José Miguel Guerrero, Lera, Francisco J. Rodríguez · Oct 29, 2026
arXiv cs.AI: Kairos selects planning engines by task semantics
Markdown · JSON · Original source
The paper’s authors present Kairos, a system that selects among five planning engines based on each task’s semantics. Planning engines handle different parts of PDDL, a language for describing planning problems, and vary in coverage, speed and what their failures mean. Kairos profiles a task, schedules applicable engines under one and memory budget, and checks each candidate plan with a validator independent of the planner’s transformations. It reports “unsolvable” only when a search whose exhaustion is a proof exhausts its space. The authors report that Kairos solved more tasks than the strongest evaluated planner in each of nine comparative suites at the full limits, and solved the most tasks at 100 ms and 1 s. They report the largest differences on numeric, temporal, PDDL3 and PDDL+ planning; against LAMA on classical planning, the gain was within the noise. In another 450 feature-oriented tasks and 26 one-feature probes, Kairos handled all seventeen tested features, while no other evaluated planner handled more than eight. The authors identify compressed temporal search and the novelty fallback as major contributors. They say every disagreement with VAL traced to a PDDL+ convention or documented VAL defect. The reported results come from ; the abstract describes runtime planning in robots as a motivation, not an evaluated setting.
Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Oct 29, 2026 (2026-10-29).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-11T06:55:37.928Z. First observed: 2026-10-30T06:45:35.834Z. Retrieved: 2026-10-31T06:48:50.245Z.
Referenced by
Recorded citations and public file attachments. A reference alone does not establish agreement or influence.
No public references recorded here yet.
Limits
The reported performance is based on suites and feature-oriented tasks; the abstract does not report evaluation on robots acting in . The abstract summarizes the comparisons but does not provide the detailed benchmark methods or results needed to assess them independently.
Open question
How would Kairos perform on runtime planning tasks beyond the suites reported by the authors?
Source-stated
Kairos profiles task semantics to select applicable engines and schedules them within a shared time and memory budget.
Kairos profiles each task to decide which of five engines apply
Source-stated
The system independently validates candidate plans and reports “unsolvable” only after a proof-capable search exhausts its space.
Every candidate plan is checked by a validator independent of the planner's transformations
Source-stated
On nine comparative suites, the authors report that Kairos solved more tasks than each suite’s strongest evaluated planner at the full limits.
On 1,756 tasks from nine comparative suites, Kairos solves more tasks at the full limits than the strongest evaluated planner of each suite
Source-stated
The reported gain against LAMA on classical planning was within the noise.
while on classical planning against LAMA it is within the noise.
Source-stated
In the feature-oriented tasks and probes, Kairos handled all tested features; no other evaluated planner handled more than eight.
Kairos handles all seventeen features probed, where no other planner evaluated handles more than eight.
Escape Meridian interpretation
The abstract reports benchmark evaluations, not tests of robots planning while acting in the world.
Planning at run time, as in robots that re-plan while they act
Source and contributor context
Rico, Francisco Martín, González, Esther Aguado, Olivo, Francisco Miguel Moreno, Rodríguez, Rodrigo Pérez, Hernández, José Miguel Guerrero, Lera, Francisco J. Rodríguez · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Benchmark
A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
TIME
TIME is a news magazine publishing reporting on world affairs, business, technology and the workers behind digital services.
The World
The World is a public radio news program publishing international reporting on politics, society, labor and technology.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 6c085453-d6fc-415e-8856-8cc1d66d92ad.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-11T06:55:37.928Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 319ba2e98176ecc50693c231a4d935848565a6392a7a60257aff5e739d6f3f52. Source text hash: 3d8c6a57edaaa16748b047252eae0a69164bd53d7b189ea32b6acde4b5e7635b.
Revision and source-check history
Version 1 · 2026-11-11T06:55:37.928Z
arXiv cs.AI: Kairos selects planning engines by task semantics
The paper’s authors present Kairos, a system that selects among five planning engines based on each task’s semantics. Planning engines handle different parts of PDDL, a language for describing planning problems, and vary in coverage, speed and what their failures mean. Kairos profiles a task, schedules applicable engines under one and memory budget, and checks each candidate plan with a validator independent of the planner’s transformations. It reports “unsolvable” only when a search whose exhaustion is a proof exhausts its space. The authors report that Kairos solved more tasks than the strongest evaluated planner in each of nine comparative suites at the full limits, and solved the most tasks at 100 ms and 1 s. They report the largest differences on numeric, temporal, PDDL3 and PDDL+ planning; against LAMA on classical planning, the gain was within the noise. In another 450 feature-oriented tasks and 26 one-feature probes, Kairos handled all seventeen tested features, while no other evaluated planner handled more than eight. The authors identify compressed temporal search and the novelty fallback as major contributors. They say every disagreement with VAL traced to a PDDL+ convention or documented VAL defect. The reported results come from ; the abstract describes runtime planning in robots as a motivation, not an evaluated setting.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Oct 29, 2026 (2026-10-29).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-11T06:55:37.928Z. First observed: 2026-10-30T06:45:35.834Z. Retrieved: 2026-10-31T06:48:50.245Z.
Limits
The reported performance is based on suites and feature-oriented tasks; the abstract does not report evaluation on robots acting in . The abstract summarizes the comparisons but does not provide the detailed benchmark methods or results needed to assess them independently.
Open question
How would Kairos perform on runtime planning tasks beyond the suites reported by the authors?
Source-stated
Kairos profiles task semantics to select applicable engines and schedules them within a shared time and memory budget.
Kairos profiles each task to decide which of five engines apply
Source-stated
The system independently validates candidate plans and reports “unsolvable” only after a proof-capable search exhausts its space.
Every candidate plan is checked by a validator independent of the planner's transformations
Source-stated
On nine comparative suites, the authors report that Kairos solved more tasks than each suite’s strongest evaluated planner at the full limits.
On 1,756 tasks from nine comparative suites, Kairos solves more tasks at the full limits than the strongest evaluated planner of each suite
Source-stated
The reported gain against LAMA on classical planning was within the noise.
while on classical planning against LAMA it is within the noise.
Source-stated
In the feature-oriented tasks and probes, Kairos handled all tested features; no other evaluated planner handled more than eight.
Kairos handles all seventeen features probed, where no other planner evaluated handles more than eight.
Escape Meridian interpretation
The abstract reports benchmark evaluations, not tests of robots planning while acting in the world.
Planning at run time, as in robots that re-plan while they act
Source and contributor context
Rico, Francisco Martín, González, Esther Aguado, Olivo, Francisco Miguel Moreno, Rodríguez, Rodrigo Pérez, Hernández, José Miguel Guerrero, Lera, Francisco J. Rodríguez · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Benchmark
A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
TIME
TIME is a news magazine publishing reporting on world affairs, business, technology and the workers behind digital services.
The World
The World is a public radio news program publishing international reporting on politics, society, labor and technology.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 6c085453-d6fc-415e-8856-8cc1d66d92ad.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-11T06:55:37.928Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 319ba2e98176ecc50693c231a4d935848565a6392a7a60257aff5e739d6f3f52. Source text hash: 3d8c6a57edaaa16748b047252eae0a69164bd53d7b189ea32b6acde4b5e7635b.
uncertain · 2026-11-11T06:55:37.928Z · anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Publication: 6c085453-d6fc-415e-8856-8cc1d66d92ad
attribution — pass: The reading attributes Kairos and all performance results to the paper's authors on arXiv cs.AI. It frames results as reported rather than as established fact, consistent with the abstract.
Kairos solves more tasks at the full limits than the strongest evaluated planner of each suite
summary — uncertain: The reading is largely faithful but has two gaps. (1) It omits a key condition: after resampling over domains, the gain is above zero in only six of the nine suites. Stating only the LAMA exception implies broader robustness than reported. Smallest repair: add the six-of-nine resampling result. (2) Central terms go unexplained for a non-specialist: VAL (a plan validator), LAMA (a strong classical planner), PDDL3/PDDL+, novelty fallback, and 'full limits'. The robot re-planning motivation, which shows why this matters, appears only at the end.
Resampling over domains, the gain is above zero in six of the nine suites, while on classical planning against LAMA it is within the noise.
date — pass: originalPublished 2026-10-29 matches the arXiv v1 submission date. The feed date of Oct 31 is correctly not used.
[Submitted on 29 Oct 2026]
support — pass: Each claim matches the abstract. The interpretation that the evaluation was benchmark-based, with robots only as motivation, is labeled as interpretation and is consistent with the abstract. The limitations and the question do not invent benefits or costs.
On 1,756 tasks from nine comparative suites, Kairos solves more tasks at the full limits than the strongest evaluated planner of each suite
media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct link to the original arXiv abstract page, which is the most relevant access point.
Challenge or correct this reading
Send a correction or an opposing source with this reading’s URL. Disagreement and uncertainty can remain unresolved.
TIME is a news magazine publishing reporting on world affairs, business, technology and the workers behind digital services.
Explore TIMEA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referenceThe World is a public radio news program publishing international reporting on politics, society, labor and technology.
Explore The WorldA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referenceTIME is a news magazine publishing reporting on world affairs, business, technology and the workers behind digital services.
Explore TIMEA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referenceThe World is a public radio news program publishing international reporting on politics, society, labor and technology.
Explore The WorldA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition reference