Planning

TL;DR Classical planners crack under scale. You can rescue them with LLMs in two ways: (1) Inspire the next action, or (2) Predict an intermediate state and split the search. On diverse benchmarks (Blocks, Logistics, Depot, Mystery), the Predict route generally solves more cases with fewer LLM calls, except when domain semantics are opaque. For enterprise automation, this points to a practical recipe: decompose → predict key waypoints → verify with a trusted solver—and only fall back to “inspire” when your domain model is thin. ...

The dominant paradigm in LLM agents today is autoregressive reasoning: think step by step, commit token by token. This approach works decently for small tasks — write a tweet, answer a math question — but it quickly falters when the goal requires deep planning, multiple decision branches, or adapting to partially observable environments. Imagine trying to plan a vacation or operate a flight search website while thinking only one move ahead. ...

LLMs are great at spitting out answers—but are they any good at thinking through problems? A new benchmark, AdvGameBench, introduces a process-based evaluation approach that places LLMs into three rule-based strategic games to measure not outcomes, but the quality of reasoning. Developed by Yuan et al., this framework focuses on how LLMs plan, revise, and make resource-limited decisions in dynamic settings. Three Games, Three Cognitive Demands 1. Tower Defense tests spatial planning and rule-following. Models place defenders on a battlefield to block enemies—positioning, cooldowns, and cost management are key. ...

In the quest for truly intelligent systems, reasoning has always stood as the ultimate benchmark. But a new paper titled “Towards a Deeper Understanding of Reasoning Capabilities in Large Language Models” by Annie Wong et al. delivers a sobering message: even the most advanced LLMs still stumble in dynamic, high-stakes environments when asked to reason, plan, and act with stability. Beyond the Benchmark Mirage Static benchmarks like math word problems or QA datasets have long given the illusion of emergent intelligence. Yet this paper dives into SmartPlay, a suite of interactive environments, to show that LLMs exhibit brittle reasoning when faced with real-time adaptation. SmartPlay is a collection of dynamic decision-making tasks designed to test planning, adaptation, and coordination under uncertainty. The team evaluates open-source models such as LLAMA3-8B, DEEPSEEK-R1-14B, and LLAMA3.3-70B on tasks involving spatial coordination, opponent modeling, and planning. The result? Larger models perform better—but only to a point. Strategic prompting can help smaller models, but also introduces volatility. ...

In the quest to make AI more trustworthy, few challenges loom larger than explaining sequential decision-making algorithms like Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS). Despite its success in domains from transit scheduling to game playing, MCTS remains a black box to most practitioners, generating decisions from expansive trees of sampled possibilities without accessible rationale. A new framework proposes to change that by fusing LLMs with formal logic to bring transparency and dialogue to this crucial planning tool1. ...

Rules of Engagement: Why LLMs Need Logic to Plan When it comes to language generation, large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4o are top of the class. But ask them to reason through a complex plan — such as reorganizing a logistics network or optimizing staff scheduling — and their performance becomes unreliable. That’s the central finding from ACPBench Hard (Kokel et al., 2025), a new benchmark from IBM Research that tests unrestrained reasoning about action, change, and planning. ...