Pith. sign in

hub

Llms can’t plan, but can help planning in llm-modulo frameworks

16 Pith papers cite this work, alongside 10 external citations. Polarity classification is still indexing.

16 Pith papers citing it
10 external citations · Pith
abstract

There is considerable confusion about the role of Large Language Models (LLMs) in planning and reasoning tasks. On one side are over-optimistic claims that LLMs can indeed do these tasks with just the right prompting or self-verification strategies. On the other side are perhaps over-pessimistic claims that all that LLMs are good for in planning/reasoning tasks are as mere translators of the problem specification from one syntactic format to another, and ship the problem off to external symbolic solvers. In this position paper, we take the view that both these extremes are misguided. We argue that auto-regressive LLMs cannot, by themselves, do planning or self-verification (which is after all a form of reasoning), and shed some light on the reasons for misunderstandings in the literature. We will also argue that LLMs should be viewed as universal approximate knowledge sources that have much more meaningful roles to play in planning/reasoning tasks beyond simple front-end/back-end format translators. We present a vision of {\bf LLM-Modulo Frameworks} that combine the strengths of LLMs with external model-based verifiers in a tighter bi-directional interaction regime. We will show how the models driving the external verifiers themselves can be acquired with the help of LLMs. We will also argue that rather than simply pipelining LLMs and symbolic components, this LLM-Modulo Framework provides a better neuro-symbolic approach that offers tighter integration between LLMs and symbolic components, and allows extending the scope of model-based planning/reasoning regimes towards more flexible knowledge, problem and preference specifications.

hub tools

citation-role summary

background 2

citation-polarity summary

years

2026 12 2025 4

roles

background 2

polarities

background 2

representative citing papers

Zero-Shot Goal Recognition with Large Language Models

cs.AI · 2026-05-14 · unverdicted · novelty 7.0

Frontier LLMs show uneven zero-shot performance on goal recognition in PDDL domains: some scale with accumulating evidence toward landmark-based accuracy while others stay anchored to world-knowledge priors.

Autoformalization of Agent Instructions into Policy-as-Code

cs.AI · 2026-06-25 · unverdicted · novelty 5.0

An LLM-based generator-critic loop autoformalizes natural language policies into Cedar policies that cover substantially more of the source specification than hand-coded symbolic enforcement on MedAgentBench.

Do LLMs have core beliefs?

cs.LG · 2026-05-05 · unverdicted · novelty 5.0

LLMs generally fail to maintain stable worldviews under adversarial conversational pressure, indicating they lack core beliefs akin to those in human cognition.

End-to-end PDDL Planning with Hardcoded and Dynamic Agents

cs.AI · 2025-12-10 · unverdicted · novelty 5.0

An end-to-end LLM framework refines natural language into valid PDDL domains and problems via hardcoded and dynamic agents, generates plans with standard engines, and returns readable output.

citing papers explorer

Showing 16 of 16 citing papers.