Pith. sign in

REVIEW 17 cited by

PlanBench: An Extensible Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models on Planning and Reasoning about Change

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2206.10498 v4 pith:G2PFPF7H submitted 2022-06-21 cs.CL cs.AI

PlanBench: An Extensible Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models on Planning and Reasoning about Change

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords planningcapabilitiesllmsreasoningplanbenchchangeextensiblemodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Generating plans of action, and reasoning about change have long been considered a core competence of intelligent agents. It is thus no surprise that evaluating the planning and reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) has become a hot topic of research. Most claims about LLM planning capabilities are however based on common sense tasks-where it becomes hard to tell whether LLMs are planning or merely retrieving from their vast world knowledge. There is a strong need for systematic and extensible planning benchmarks with sufficient diversity to evaluate whether LLMs have innate planning capabilities. Motivated by this, we propose PlanBench, an extensible benchmark suite based on the kinds of domains used in the automated planning community, especially in the International Planning Competition, to test the capabilities of LLMs in planning or reasoning about actions and change. PlanBench provides sufficient diversity in both the task domains and the specific planning capabilities. Our studies also show that on many critical capabilities-including plan generation-LLM performance falls quite short, even with the SOTA models. PlanBench can thus function as a useful marker of progress of LLMs in planning and reasoning.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 17 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Lost in Aggregation: A Multi-Scale Diagnostic Benchmark for LLM Spatial Navigation

    physics.soc-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A new diagnostic benchmark decomposes LLM spatial navigation into three cognitive scales and shows that cross-scale aggregation, not single-level deficits, causes failure beyond small mazes.

  2. Zero-Shot Goal Recognition with Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2026-05 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.

  3. SAT: Sequential Agent Tuning for Coordinator Free Plug and Play Multi-LLM Training with Monotonic Improvement Guarantees

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    SAT trains multi-LLM teams with sequential block updates to deliver monotonic gains and plug-and-play model swaps that provably improve performance bounds.

  4. Assessing Coherency and Consistency of Code Execution Reasoning by Large Language Models

    cs.SE 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    LLMs achieve 81% coherent execution simulation on HumanEval but show mostly random or weak consistency across tests, with frontier models relying on natural language shortcuts instead of true program analysis.

  5. GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models

    cs.LG 2024-10 accept novelty 7.0

    LLMs display high variance and major accuracy drops on GSM-Symbolic variants of grade-school math problems, indicating they replicate training patterns rather than execute logical reasoning.

  6. CodeMind: Evaluating Large Language Models for Code Reasoning

    cs.SE 2024-02 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    CodeMind evaluates ten LLMs on four benchmarks using three new code reasoning tasks, finding performance varies by model size and drops with complexity while showing no correlation with bug repair ability.

  7. LLM+P: Empowering Large Language Models with Optimal Planning Proficiency

    cs.AI 2023-04 accept novelty 7.0

    LLM+P lets LLMs solve planning problems optimally by converting them to PDDL for classical planners and back to natural language.

  8. REPOT: Recoverable Program-of-Thought via Checkpoint Repair

    cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    RePoT recovers from PoT failures via deterministic verified replay and checkpoint repair, yielding +3 to +11pp gains on planning benchmarks and showing checkpoint state as the key recovery signal over error-only feedback.

  9. OPT-BENCH: Evaluating the Iterative Self-Optimization of LLM Agents in Large-Scale Search Spaces

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    OPT-BENCH and OPT-Agent evaluate LLM self-optimization in large search spaces, showing stronger models improve via feedback but stay constrained by base capacity and below human performance.

  10. The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity

    cs.AI 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LRMs exhibit complete accuracy collapse beyond certain puzzle complexities, with reasoning effort rising then declining, outperforming standard LLMs only on medium-complexity tasks.

  11. Cognitive Architectures for Language Agents

    cs.AI 2023-09 accept novelty 6.0

    CoALA is a modular cognitive architecture for language agents that organizes memory components, action spaces for internal and external interaction, and a generalized decision-making loop to support more systematic de...

  12. Reasoning with Language Model is Planning with World Model

    cs.CL 2023-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    RAP turns LLMs into dual world-model and planning agents via MCTS to generate better reasoning paths, outperforming CoT baselines and achieving 33% relative gains over GPT-4 CoT using LLaMA-33B on plan generation.

  13. Distilling Step-by-Step! Outperforming Larger Language Models with Less Training Data and Smaller Model Sizes

    cs.CL 2023-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    Distilling step-by-step uses LLM-generated rationales as additional supervision in a multi-task framework so that 770M-parameter models outperform 540B-parameter models on NLP benchmarks with only 80% of the data.

  14. Search, Fail, Recover: A Training Framework for Correction-Aware Reasoning

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Pyligent trains LLMs to search, detect failures via task validators, and backtrack to recoverable prefixes, improving solve rates by 13–73 points over gold-only SFT on hidden graphs, Sudoku, and Blocksworld.

  15. Managing Uncertainty in LLM-Generated Procedural Knowledge for Virtual Laboratory Planning

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A framework that extracts candidate procedural rules from uncertain LLM-generated state-transition samples, transforms them into explicit constraints, and uses them to repair steps in virtual lab planning.

  16. Consistency as a Testable Property: Statistical Methods to Evaluate AI Agent Reliability

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A framework with U-statistics and kernel-based metrics quantifies AI agent consistency and robustness, showing trajectory metrics outperform pass@1 rates in diagnosing failures.

  17. Lost in Cultural Translation: Do LLMs Struggle with Math Across Cultural Contexts?

    cs.AI 2025-03 conditional novelty 5.0

    LLMs show accuracy drops of 0.3% to 5.9% on GSM8K math problems when culturally adapted to six countries while keeping math operations identical, with statistical significance confirmed by McNemar tests.