arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.28102

Polyscene: Scenario Planning as Diversity Planning

Abstract

Scenario planning is a foresight practice in which analysts construct a small set of plausible futures and prepare an organisation for each. Each scenario is a narrative that must be plausible, internally consistent, relevant and challenging, and the set as a whole must be differentiated. The practice remains manual: a workshop (i.e., a facilitated meeting in which a small group of experts writes the narratives) considers only the factors it has time for, carries the biases of the experts who run it, and cannot be redone whenever conditions change. In this paper, we automate scenario planning by casting it as a diversity planning problem, in which two scenarios differ when they end in different narratives on the analyst's drivers. The result is a set of scenarios, one for each narrative that the topic can reach within a budget. Our implementation, Polyscene, is a generic engine that generates scenarios from a topic. We use geopolitical conflicts and shipping-route disruptions as case studies. For the first, we build the planning problem's initial state from the GDELT Project so it reflects current relationships among the countries involved. Polyscene then generates scenarios showing how relationships among those countries change. With a board of six countries as of 1 January 2021 and a budget of five events, the conflict set puts five of the 15 country pairs at war, and each of the three wars that break out among these countries by 1 January 2026 ends a scenario. For the second, we build the initial state from ship traffic, a supply-pressure index, and the news, and Polyscene generates scenarios showing what a closed or diverted route could do to a manufacturer's parts stock. With four routes per board and the same date and budget, each set includes three outcomes, and the Suez Canal set includes the March 2021 blockage and the December 2023 Red Sea container diversion.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mustafa F. Abdelwahed, Joan Espasa, Felipe Meneguzzi. 2026-10-20. Polyscene: Scenario Planning as Diversity Planning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.28102

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Gibson Env: Real-World Perception for Embodied Agents

Developing visual perception models for active agents and sensorimotor control are cumbersome to be done in the physical world, as existing algorithms are too slow to efficiently learn in real-time and robots are fragile and costly. This has given rise to learning-in-simulation which consequently casts a question on whether the results transfer to real-world. In this paper, we are concerned with the problem of developing real-world perception for active agents, propose Gibson Virtual Environment for this purpose, and showcase sample perceptual tasks learned therein. Gibson is based on virtualizing real spaces, rather than using artificially designed ones, and currently includes over 1400 floor spaces from 572 full buildings. The main characteristics of Gibson are: I. being from the real-world and reflecting its semantic complexity, II. having an internal synthesis mechanism, "Goggles", enabling deploying the trained models in real-world without needing further domain adaptation, III. embodiment of agents and making them subject to constraints of physics and space.

cs.AI↗

GenoMAS: Guided Multi-Agent Programming for Scientific Discovery from Genomic Data

Gene expression analysis holds the key to many biomedical discoveries, yet extracting insights from raw transcriptomic data remains challenging due to the complexity of multiple large, semi-structured files and the need for extensive domain expertise. Current approaches either rely on inflexible workflows that fail in edge cases or fully autonomous agents that lack the precision required for rigorous scientific inquiry. GenoMAS addresses this by presenting a team of LLM-based agents that integrates structured workflows with autonomous adaptability, orchestrating diverse specialized agents through typed message-passing protocols. At its core lies a guided-planning framework where programming agents decompose task guidelines into Action Units and dynamically choose to advance, revise, bypass, or backtrack, maintaining logical coherence while adapting to the idiosyncrasies of genomic data. On the GenoTEX benchmark, GenoMAS achieves 89.13% CSC for data preprocessing and 60.48% $F_1$ for identifying trait-associated genes, surpassing prior art by 10.61% and 16.85%. Beyond transcriptomics, it outperforms strong agent baselines on ScienceAgentBench and DiscoveryBench, two independent bioinformatics benchmarks. Qualitative analysis shows that GenoMAS identifies gene-phenotype associations that are biologically plausible and corroborated by the literature.

cs.AI↗

How Far Are LLMs from Symbolic Planners? An NLP-Based Perspective

AI planning provides agents the ability to act autonomously towards achieving a goal in a given environment. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have introduced the prospect of using unstructured input for planning, making LLMs in planning an active area of research, especially for supporting autonomous agents. However, LLMs remain unreliable as long-horizon planners, since some of the plans they produce contain mistaken or hallucinated actions; executing such plans could lead to unexpected and harmful outcomes. Existing benchmarks for LLMs in planning primarily rely on binary evaluation metrics, providing limited insight into the quality of plans that do not achieve the goal, and how far those are from becoming valid. In this paper, we frame the evaluation of LLMs in planning as a natural language processing (NLP) task, as LLMs are themselves NLP models. We propose a pipeline comprising three NLP-based steps that assess plan quality from complementary perspectives, followed by a symbolic planning step to achieve a valid plan, to provide a finer-grained understanding of the quality of invalid plans. In our experiments, we find no clear evidence of logical derivation or state-tracking during LLM plan generation -- on average, for all non-empty plans, only 3.55 actions per plan are executable, despite symbolically-generated optimal plans having an average length of 9.47 actions, which suggests that LLMs are still far from the reliability of symbolic planners. Our suite of metrics is further used to investigate patterns in LLM plan generation over time, and can provide a useful metric for assessing the quality of individual invalid plans.

cs.AI↗