mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

U-Define: Designing User Workflows for Hard and Soft Constraints in LLM-Based Planning

arXiv 2605.02765 ↗First posted 4 May 2026cs.AI cs.HC cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

LLMs are increasingly used for end-user task planning, yet their black-box nature limits users' ability to ensure reliability and control. While recent systems incorporate verification techniques, it remains unclear how users can effectively apply such rigid constraints to represent intent or adapt to real-world variability. For example, prior work finds that hard-only constraints are too rigid, and numeric flexibility weights confuse users. We investigate how interaction workflows can better support users in applying constraints to guide LLM-generated plans, examining whether abstracting strictness into high-level types (i.e., hard and soft) paired with distinct verification mechanisms helps users more reliably express and align intent. We present U-Define, a system that lets users define constraints in natural language and categorize them as either hard rules that must not be violated or soft preferences that allow flexibility. U-Define verifies these types through complementary methods: formal model checking for hard constraints and LLM-as-judge evaluation for soft ones. Through a technical evaluation and user studies with general and expert participants, we find that user-defined constraint types improve perceived usefulness, performance, and satisfaction while maintaining usability. These findings provide insights for designing flexible yet reliable constraint-based workflows.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 47 of its 122 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 May 2026.

Builds on

47 of 122 references.

References · 47

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
  3. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,132
  4. 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,297
  5. 2023QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMscited by 3,418
  6. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
  7. 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,975
  8. 2022Large Language Models Encode Clinical Knowledgecited by 1,830
  9. 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,085
  10. 2024TravelPlanner: A Benchmark for Real-World Planning with Language Agentscited by 392
  11. 2021Measuring and Improving Consistency in Pretrained Language Modelscited by 364
  12. 2023Multi-Agent Collaboration: Harnessing the Power of Intelligent LLM Agentscited by 333
35 more
  1. 2021Unsolved Problems in ML Safetycited by 292
  2. 2020Integrated Task and Motion Planningcited by 290
  3. 2018Manipulating and Measuring Model Interpretabilitycited by 256
  4. 2023Leveraging Pre-trained Large Language Models to Construct and Utilize World Models for Model-based Task Planningcited by 207
  5. 2024LLMs Can't Plan, But Can Help Planning in LLM-Modulo Frameworkscited by 179
  6. 2023A Categorical Archive of ChatGPT Failurescited by 168
  7. 2022A Review on Language Models as Knowledge Basescited by 157
  8. 2023Benchmarking Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models as Evaluatorscited by 150
  9. 2024Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferencescited by 144
  10. 2024On the Self-Verification Limitations of Large Language Models on Reasoning and Planning Taskscited by 142
  11. 2023AI Transparency in the Age of LLMs: A Human-Centered Research Roadmapcited by 123
  12. 2024OffsetBias: Leveraging Debiased Data for Tuning Evaluatorscited by 94
  13. 2023Bridging the Gulf of Envisioning: Cognitive Design Challenges in LLM Interfacescited by 72
  14. 2023Plug in the Safety Chip: Enforcing Constraints for LLM-driven Robot Agentscited by 69
  15. 2024CFBench: A Comprehensive Constraints-Following Benchmark for LLMscited by 67
  16. 2024(A)I Am Not a Lawyer, But...: Engaging Legal Experts towards Responsible LLM Policies for Legal Advicecited by 63
  17. 2025Plan-Then-Execute: An Empirical Study of User Trust and Team Performance When Using LLM Agents As A Daily Assistantcited by 54
  18. 2023Grounding Complex Natural Language Commands for Temporal Tasks in Unseen Environmentscited by 53
  19. 2024"We Need Structured Output": Towards User-centered Constraints on Large Language Model Outputcited by 46
  20. 2024Current state of LLM Risks and AI Guardrailscited by 46
  21. 2024On the Prospects of Incorporating Large Language Models (LLMs) in Automated Planning and Scheduling (APS)cited by 40
  22. 2024Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verificationcited by 40
  23. 2025Fostering Appropriate Reliance on Large Language Models: The Role of Explanations, Sources, and Inconsistenciescited by 39
  24. 2023Beyond the Chat: Executable and Verifiable Text-Editing with LLMscited by 35
  25. 2024Robust Planning with LLM-Modulo Framework: Case Study in Travel Planningcited by 34
  26. 2018Nopol: Automatic Repair of Conditional Statement Bugs in Java Programscited by 32
  27. 2023Understanding Users' Dissatisfaction with ChatGPT Responses: Types, Resolving Tactics, and the Effect of Knowledge Levelcited by 26
  28. 2025VeriPlan: Integrating Formal Verification and LLMs into End-User Planningcited by 20
  29. 2023Beyond ChatBots: ExploreLLM for Structured Thoughts and Personalized Model Responsescited by 18
  30. 2023ChatGPT for Digital Forensic Investigation: The Good, The Bad, and The Unknowncited by 17
  31. 2019Model-Free Model Reconciliationcited by 8
  32. 2025MAP: Multi-user Personalization with Collaborative LLM-powered Agentscited by 7
  33. 2023Sketching Robot Programs On the Flycited by 4
  34. 2024Goal-Oriented End-User Programming of Robotscited by 3
  35. 2025Uncertainty Expression for Human-Robot Task Communicationcited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.