Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Planning in Strawberry Fields: Evaluating and Improving the Planning and Scheduling Capabilities of LRM o1

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 2410.02162 v1 pith:G7KNLKMU submitted 2024-10-03 cs.AI

Planning in Strawberry Fields: Evaluating and Improving the Planning and Scheduling Capabilities of LRM o1

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

The ability to plan a course of action that achieves a desired state of affairs has long been considered a core competence of intelligent agents and has been an integral part of AI research since its inception. With the advent of large language models (LLMs), there has been considerable interest in the question of whether or not they possess such planning abilities, but -- despite the slew of new private and open source LLMs since GPT3 -- progress has remained slow. OpenAI claims that their recent o1 (Strawberry) model has been specifically constructed and trained to escape the normal limitations of autoregressive LLMs -- making it a new kind of model: a Large Reasoning Model (LRM). In this paper, we evaluate the planning capabilities of two LRMs (o1-preview and o1-mini) on both planning and scheduling benchmarks. We see that while o1 does seem to offer significant improvements over autoregressive LLMs, this comes at a steep inference cost, while still failing to provide any guarantees over what it generates. We also show that combining o1 models with external verifiers -- in a so-called LRM-Modulo system -- guarantees the correctness of the combined system's output while further improving performance.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Weighted Rules under the Stable Model Semantics

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Weighted rules extend stable model semantics to support probabilistic reasoning, model ranking, and statistical inference in answer set programs.

  2. Frontier Large Language Models Rival State-of-the-Art Planners

    cs.AI 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0

    Frontier LLMs now match or exceed state-of-the-art classical planners on IPC planning tasks, with Gemini 3.1 Pro solving 245 of 360 tasks versus 234 for the best baseline.

  3. Bootstrapping Human-Like Planning via LLMs

    cs.AI 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    LLM pipeline converts natural language into human-like robot action sequences; larger models match hand-specified sequences better than smaller ones but smaller models still perform adequately.