Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 19 references

Systematic Analysis of LLM Contributions to Planning: Solver, Verifier, Heuristic

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that across three planning domains, LLMs are more reliable when used to rank candidate partial plans than when used to generate or verify complete plans, and it provides an evaluation framework supporting this asymmetry.

desk verdict Useful three-role framework and a plausible comparative-heuristic idea, but the course-planning oracle is not a valid planning heuristic, so the headline claim about LLM heuristic value is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09666 v1 pith:NMEXVI3E submitted 2024-12-12 cs.AI cs.CL

Haoming Li , Zhaoliang Chen , Songyuan Liu , Yiming Lu , Fei Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CL
keywords LLMplanningcomparativeheuristictreesearchplanverificationtravelcourseschedulingfitnesstest-timescaling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that when large language models are embedded in planning systems, their most reliable contribution is neither generating complete plans nor verifying them, but ranking partial candidate solutions against one another. Across three planning tasks—travel itineraries, course scheduling, and personalized fitness planning—the authors measure the same models as direct solvers, as verifiers, and as comparative heuristic functions. Solver pass rates are low, verification is unreliable on complex constraints, while ranking of candidate plans reaches substantially higher hit rates, especially after one worked example of how to compare. The authors conclude that LLM-based tree-search algorithms should use LLMs primarily to provide comparative feedback on intermediate solutions rather than to produce final plans. They also introduce an interactive fitness-planning benchmark in which the agent must learn a user's hidden preferences from iterative feedback.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the comparative heuristic function $\hat{g}_T(\hat{y}_1, \hat{y}_2, x)$, an LLM-parameterized approximation of the ground-truth pair-ordering $g_T(\hat{y}_1, \hat{y}_2, y, x)$. Instead of asking the model to estimate an exact distance to an optimal plan, the framework asks only which of two partial candidates is closer, and that ordinal question is what makes the heuristic tractable. Around it, the paper builds an evaluation protocol: each dataset defines an oracle $f_T$ (constraint pass rate for travel, distance to a gold schedule for course planning, a hidden utility score for fitness), and LLM ranking accuracy is measured by hit@k and comparison accuracy against that oracle. The one-shot course-planning condition shows how a single example of the comparison function focuses the model's reasoning and lifts performance.

What would settle it

Implement the same LLM as the ranking heuristic inside an actual tree-search planner on these three benchmarks and compare the resulting plan quality against the same search guided by the dataset's oracle score; the central claim fails if high ranking accuracy on the paper's candidate pairs does not produce better search outcomes than random ordering or a simpler baseline.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is an asymmetry across three roles an LLM can play in a planning system. Given a task, the paper defines an oracle heuristic $f_T(\hat{y}, y, x)$ scoring how close a candidate solution is to the correct one, and a comparison function $g_T$ that picks the better of two candidates. The LLM's approximation $\hat{g}_T(\hat{y}_1, \hat{y}_2, x)$ needs only to order the candidates, not to predict a numeric distance, and this ordinal formulation is what the models handle well. In course planning, for instance, direct solvers almost never produce feasible schedules, yet the same models rank four candidate plans with hit@1 around 0.41 zero-shot and 0.48 one-shot for Claude-3.5-Sonnet; in travel planning, GPT-4o reaches hit@1 0.5911 as a ranker while its solver pass rate is 0.072 direct and 0.083 with chain-of-thought. The paper reads this as evidence that LLM-based tree search should delegate guidance to a comparative heuristic and reserve generation for proposing candidates.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's conclusion assumes that an LLM's accuracy at ranking deliberately altered or author-scored candidate plans carries over to ranking the messy intermediate states a real tree search would encounter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LLM-based tree-search planners should be built with the LLM as a ranker of intermediate candidates, with candidate generation handled separately, since generation and verification are the weak links.
  • One-shot demonstrations of the comparison heuristic are cheap and materially improve ranking, so prompting a search algorithm with a worked comparison example is a low-cost lever.
  • Self-verification by an LLM is not a reliable substitute for an oracle when constraints are commonsense or global, so planning systems should avoid depending on it.
  • The fitness-planning benchmark offers a controllable environment for studying online preference learning, where success is measured by how fast an agent converges on a hidden utility function.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • What is not yet shown is end-to-end gain: the paper measures ranking accuracy on constructed candidate sets, so the strongest reading is that an LLM ranker could guide search, not that it already does.
  • A natural extension is to replace the random corruption of gold plans with search-generated partial plans and test whether ranking accuracy predicts downstream plan quality in an actual tree search.
  • The comparative formulation may transfer to any task where exact scoring is hard but pairwise preference is easy, such as document triage or plan repair in robotics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes decomposing LLM planning contributions into three independent roles—solver, verifier, and comparative heuristic—and evaluates them on TravelPlanner, a new course-scheduling benchmark, and a new interactive fitness-planning benchmark. The experiments, run with GPT-4o, Claude-3.5-Sonnet, and DeepSeek-V2.5, show low end-to-end solve rates, moderate verifier pass rates, and relatively high hit@k scores on pairwise ranking of candidate plans. From this, the paper concludes that LLMs are more effective as comparative heuristic functions than as generators or verifiers, and it presents the fitness benchmark as a testbed for learning user preferences on the fly.

Significance. If the conclusion were established, it would provide useful guidance for LLM-based tree search: use LLMs to rank intermediate candidates rather than to emit final plans. The paper's decomposition is clean and the comparative formulation in Eq. (1) is well motivated; the new course and fitness datasets fill an obvious gap, and the multi-model comparison is a strength. However, the current experiments do not validate the oracle heuristics as search guidance, and the headline comparison treats incomparable metrics as if they were on one scale. The central claim is plausible but not yet demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2 and Eq. (1); Table 5] Course planning has many valid goal states, but the ground-truth comparison function is defined through dist(P_i, P_gold) to a single gold plan. A complete feasible and even optimal plan that assigns a section to a different valid classroom has nonzero distance to P_gold, while an incomplete prefix that happens to match P_gold can have smaller distance. The oracle in Eq. (1) therefore ranks a non-solution above a solution, so the hit@k scores in Table 5 measure how well the LLM infers a hidden reference plan rather than how useful the ranking would be for guiding search. Since no end-to-end tree search is run, the central conclusion that LLMs are much better as comparative heuristics is not supported by the course-planning experiment.
  2. [Section 5, Tables 2-5] Solver, verifier, and heuristic scores are reported on different scales and over different units: final pass rate for plans, pass or accuracy rate for verification, and hit@k for rankings. A hit@1 of 0.59 and a solver pass rate of 0.07 are not comparable quantities, and no confidence intervals or multiple-seed runs are given, so the abstract's comparative claim that LLMs are much better as heuristics than as solvers is not statistically grounded.
  3. [Section 4.1, Eq. (3), Table 4] The fitness-planning oracle is the author-defined weighted utility with free parameters alpha and beta plus a hidden preference vector U. This is a constructed target: no evidence is offered that it approximates real user satisfaction, and the ranking experiments only show agreement with this synthetic utility. Consequently, the novel benchmark's claim about learning user preferences on the fly is not yet validated for real users, and ranking accuracy on this target does not by itself establish heuristic value in interactive optimization.
  4. [Section 3.3 and Section 5] The comparative heuristic is motivated by tree search, but all heuristic experiments are static ranking tasks over candidate sets with no search algorithm. The chain from ranking synthetic corruptions to search guidance is incomplete; a direct evaluation, for example best-first search with the LLM heuristic versus a baseline, or at least a correlation analysis between ranking accuracy and search progress, is required to support the central conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.3] The text contains an unresolved reference to a table number; please replace it with the actual table identifier.
  2. [Table 3] The verifier table mixes different metrics across datasets, reporting feasibility and optimality for course planning but only pass rate for fitness and travel planning, which makes cross-domain conclusions difficult to draw.
  3. [Section 4.2] The optimality objective J(P) is written as a sum with ambiguous index associations, and the delta = 1.3 threshold is not explained; please rewrite the formula with explicit ranges and justify the threshold.
  4. [Sections 5.1 and 5.2] The in-text references to Table 6 are confusing because the main-text solver table is numbered Table 2 and the detailed results appear in the appendix; please renumber or make the references unambiguous.
  5. [Sections 4.1 and 4.2] The paper alternates between few-shot and one-shot for the heuristic settings; please unify the terminology and state clearly how many exemplars are used in each experiment.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: LLM heuristic performance is scored against author-defined or external oracle functions, with no fitted parameter or self-citation chain forcing the result.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical evaluation, not a derivation, and its central comparison does not reduce to its inputs. In Section 3.3 the oracle comparison function g_T is defined from an independent ground-truth solution y and an oracle heuristic f_T; the LLM's approximation g_hat_T is then scored by agreement with g_T. The oracle targets are fixed independently of LLM outputs: travel planning uses the TravelPlanner constraint pass-rate script, fitness planning uses an author-defined utility function f, and course planning uses edit distance to a single gold plan Pgold. No LLM output is used to define these targets, and no model parameter is fitted to the evaluation set, so the reported hit@k and comparison-accuracy numbers are not forced by construction. The one-shot heuristic condition supplies an example heuristic as part of the prompt; this is an input condition, not a fitted parameter renamed as prediction. The most serious concern raised by a careful reader, that course-planning distance to a single Pgold is not a valid planning heuristic because many valid goal states exist, is a construct-validity objection about whether the benchmark measures useful search guidance, not a circularity: the LLM is scored against an external target that does not depend on the LLM's own predictions. The paper also contains no load-bearing self-citations; its references to TravelPlanner, RAP, ToT, Reflexion, and related work are external sources for benchmarks and methods. No equation is defined in terms of the quantity it is used to predict, so the central claim about comparative heuristic functions is not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The empirical findings rest entirely on these synthetic benchmarks, and the free parameters are not reported, so the quantitative results cannot be reproduced or generalized.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha (fitness utility weight) = not reported
    Controls the Plan component in the satisfaction score Ft in Eq. 3; the paper does not give the value.
  • beta (fitness utility weight) = not reported
    Controls the Rep component in Eq. 3; value not stated.
  • delta (course occupancy threshold) = 1.3
    Defines optimality in course planning in Section 4.2; chosen by the authors.
  • dynamic constraint probability p = not reported
    Probability of introducing emergency constraints in fitness planning, Section 4.1.
  • candidate corruption rate = not reported
    Rate at which gold plans are randomly altered to produce candidate plans for heuristic ranking in Section 4.2.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The oracle heuristic fT, defined as micro pass rate or distance to gold, is a valid proxy for planning quality.
    Used in Sections 3.3 and 4.3 to define ground-truth rankings for evaluating LLM heuristics.
  • ad hoc to paper User satisfaction in fitness planning is a weighted sum of Plan, Rep, and Overlap scores.
    Eq. 3 defines Ft this way with no empirical justification.
  • domain assumption LLM ranking performance on corrupted candidates predicts usefulness as a search heuristic.
    The course-planning heuristic test in Section 4.2 relies on this transfer.
invented entities (2)
  • Synthetic User with hidden preference vector U
    purpose: Provides the target for the fitness-planning preference-learning benchmark.
    The preference vector is generated by the authors, not measured from real users, so results on this benchmark have no external validation.
  • Emergency condition bank
    purpose: Injects dynamic constraints to test plan adaptation.
    A constructed set of text scenarios with no empirical grounding.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Systematic Analysis of LLM Contributions to Planning: Solver, Verifier, Heuristic." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NMEXVI3E

@misc{pith2026241209666,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Systematic Analysis of LLM Contributions to Planning: Solver, Verifier, Heuristic},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NMEXVI3E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09666}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we provide a systematic analysis of how large language models (LLMs) contribute to solving planning problems. In particular, we examine how LLMs perform when they are used as problem solver, solution verifier, and heuristic guidance to improve intermediate solutions. Our analysis reveals that although it is difficult for LLMs to generate correct plans out-of-the-box, LLMs are much better at providing feedback signals to intermediate/incomplete solutions in the form of comparative heuristic functions. This evaluation framework provides insights into how future work may design better LLM-based tree-search algorithms to solve diverse planning and reasoning problems. We also propose a novel benchmark to evaluate LLM's ability to learn user preferences on the fly, which has wide applications in practical settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09666 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of Proposed Fitness Planning Framework [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters, 2024

    Charlie Snell, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, and Aviral Kumar. Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.03314

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Reasoning with language model is planning with world model, 2023

    Shibo Hao, Yi Gu, Haodi Ma, Joshua Jiahua Hong, Zhen Wang, Daisy Zhe Wang, and Zhiting Hu. Reasoning with language model is planning with world model, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14992

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan

    Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Thomas L. Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models, 2023 a . URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10601

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Large language model guided tree-of-thought, 2023

    Jieyi Long. Large language model guided tree-of-thought, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.08291

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Edward Berman, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 37th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2023), 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2023), 2023 b

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents

    Wenlong Huang, Pieter Abbeel, Deepak Pathak, and Igor Mordatch. Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 9118--9147. PMLR, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Sadler, Wei-Lun Chao, and Yu Su

    Chan Hee Song, Jiaman Wu, Clayton Washington, Brian M. Sadler, Wei-Lun Chao, and Yu Su. Llm-planner: Few-shot grounded planning for embodied agents with large language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 19 references
  1. [9]

    Selfgoal: Your language agents already know how to achieve high-level goals, 2024

    Ruihan Yang, Jiangjie Chen, Yikai Zhang, Siyu Yuan, Aili Chen, Kyle Richardson, Yanghua Xiao, and Deqing Yang. Selfgoal: Your language agents already know how to achieve high-level goals, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04784

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Saycanpay: Heuristic planning with large language models using learnable domain knowledge

    Rishi Hazra, Pedro Zuidberg Dos Martires, and Luc De Raedt. Saycanpay: Heuristic planning with large language models using learnable domain knowledge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12682, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Progprompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large language models

    Ishika Singh, Valts Blukis, Arsalan Mousavian, Ankit Goyal, Danfei Xu, Jonathan Tremblay, Dieter Fox, Jesse Thomason, and Animesh Garg. Progprompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large language models. In Proceedings of the 36th Conference on Neural Information Pro...

    2022

  4. [12]

    Adaplanner: Adaptive planning from feedback with language models, 2023

    Haotian Sun, Yuchen Zhuang, Lingkai Kong, Bo Dai, and Chao Zhang. Adaplanner: Adaptive planning from feedback with language models, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.16653

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Pre-trained language models for interactive decision-making

    Shuang Li, Xavier Puig, Chris Paxton, Yilun Du, Clinton Wang, Linxi Fan, Tao Chen, De-An Huang, Ekin Aky "u rek, Anima Anandkumar, Jacob Andreas, Igor Mordatch, Antonio Torralba, and Yuke Zhu. Pre-trained language models for interactive decision-making. In 36th Conference on N...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Describe, explain, plan and select: Interactive planning with large language models

    Zihao Wang, Shaofei Cai, Guanzhou Chen, Anji Liu, Xiaojian Ma, and Yitao Liang. Describe, explain, plan and select: Interactive planning with large language models. In 37th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2023. URL https://github.com/CraftJarvis/...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Learning to reason with llms, 2024

    OpenAI. Learning to reason with llms, 2024. URL https://openai.com/index/learning-to-reason-with-llms/. Accessed: 2024-11-27

    2024

  8. [16]

    Le, Christopher Ré, and Azalia Mirhoseini

    Bradley Brown, Jordan Juravsky, Ryan Ehrlich, Ronald Clark, Quoc V. Le, Christopher Ré, and Azalia Mirhoseini. Large language monkeys: Scaling inference compute with repeated sampling, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21787

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Travelplanner: A benchmark for real-world planning with language agents

    Jian Xie, Kai Zhang, Jiangjie Chen, Tinghui Zhu, Renze Lou, Yuandong Tian, Yanghua Xiao, and Yu Su. Travelplanner: A benchmark for real-world planning with language agents. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Planfitting: Tailoring personalized exercise plans with large language models, 2023

    Donghoon Shin, Gary Hsieh, and Young-Ho Kim. Planfitting: Tailoring personalized exercise plans with large language models, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.12555

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    u chemann, Maria Bannert, Daryna Dementieva, Frank Fischer, Urs Gasser, Georg Groh, Stephan G \

    Enkelejda Kasneci, Kathrin Se ler, Stefan K \"u chemann, Maria Bannert, Daryna Dementieva, Frank Fischer, Urs Gasser, Georg Groh, Stephan G \"u nnemann, Eyke H \"u llermeier, et al. Chatgpt for good? on opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learn...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.