Robust Planning with Compound LLM Architectures: An LLM-Modulo Approach

Previous work has attempted to boost Large Language Model (LLM) performance on planning and scheduling tasks through a variety of prompt engineering techniques. While these methods can work within the distributions tested, they are neither robust nor predictable. This limitation can be addressed through compound LLM architectures where LLMs work in conjunction with other components to ensure reliability. In this paper, we present a technical evaluation of a compound LLM architecture--the LLM-Modulo framework. In this framework, an LLM is paired with a complete set of sound verifiers that validate its output, re-prompting it if it fails. This approach ensures that the system can never output any fallacious output, and therefore that every output generated is guaranteed correct--something previous techniques have not been able to claim. Our results, evaluated across four scheduling domains, demonstrate significant performance gains with the LLM-Modulo framework using various models. Additionally, we explore modifications to the base configuration of the framework and assess their impact on overall system performance.

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

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.

Robust Planning with LLM-Modulo Framework: Case Study in Travel Planning

As the applicability of Large Language Models (LLMs) extends beyond traditional text processing tasks, there is a burgeoning interest in their potential to excel in planning and reasoning assignments, realms traditionally reserved for System 2 cognitive competencies. Despite their perceived versatility, the research community is still unraveling effective strategies to harness these models in such complex domains. The recent discourse introduced by the paper on LLM Modulo marks a significant stride, proposing a conceptual framework that enhances the integration of LLMs into diverse planning and reasoning activities. This workshop paper delves into the practical application of this framework within the domain of travel planning, presenting a specific instance of its implementation. We are using the Travel Planning benchmark by the OSU NLP group, a benchmark for evaluating the performance of LLMs in producing valid itineraries based on user queries presented in natural language. While popular methods of enhancing the reasoning abilities of LLMs such as Chain of Thought, ReAct, and Reflexion achieve a meager 0%, 0.6%, and 0% with GPT3.5-Turbo respectively, our operationalization of the LLM-Modulo framework for TravelPlanning domain provides a remarkable improvement, enhancing baseline performances by 4.6x for GPT4-Turbo and even more for older models like GPT3.5-Turbo from 0% to 5%. Furthermore, we highlight the other useful roles of LLMs in the planning pipeline, as suggested in LLM-Modulo, which can be reliably operationalized such as extraction of useful critics and reformulator for critics.

Chain of Thoughtlessness: An Analysis of CoT in Planning

Large language model (LLM) performance on reasoning problems typically does not generalize out of distribution. Previous work has claimed that this can be mitigated by modifying prompts to include examples with chains of thought--demonstrations of solution procedures--with the intuition that it is possible to in-context teach an LLM an algorithm for solving the problem. This paper presents a case study of chain of thought on problems from Blocksworld, a classical planning domain, and examine the performance of two state-of-the-art LLMs across two axes: generality of examples given in prompt, and complexity of problems queried with each prompt. While our problems are very simple, we only find meaningful performance improvements from chain of thought prompts when those prompts are exceedingly specific to their problem class, and that those improvements quickly deteriorate as the size n of the query-specified stack grows past the size of stacks shown in the examples. Our results hint that, contrary to previous claims in the literature, CoT's performance improvements do not stem from the model learning general algorithmic procedures via demonstrations and depend on carefully engineering highly problem specific prompts. This spotlights drawbacks of chain of thought, especially because of the sharp tradeoff between possible performance gains and the amount of human labor necessary to generate examples with correct reasoning traces.

On the Self-Verification Limitations of Large Language Models on Reasoning and Planning Tasks

There has been considerable divergence of opinion on the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). While the initial optimism that reasoning might emerge automatically with scale has been tempered thanks to a slew of counterexamples--ranging from multiplication to simple planning--there persists a wide spread belief that LLMs can self-critique and improve their own solutions in an iterative fashion. This belief seemingly rests on the assumption that verification of correctness should be easier than generation--a rather classical argument from computational complexity--which should be irrelevant to LLMs to the extent that what they are doing is approximate retrieval. In this paper, we set out to systematically investigate the effectiveness of iterative prompting in the context of reasoning and planning. We present a principled empirical study of the performance of GPT-4 in three domains: Game of 24, Graph Coloring, and STRIPS planning. We experiment both with the model critiquing its own answers and with an external correct reasoner verifying proposed solutions. In each case, we analyze whether the content of criticisms actually affects bottom line performance, and whether we can ablate elements of the augmented system without losing performance. We observe significant performance collapse with self-critique, significant performance gains with sound external verification, but that the content of critique doesn't matter to the performance of the system. In fact, merely re-prompting with a sound verifier maintains most of the benefits of more involved setups.

LLMs Can't Plan, But Can Help Planning in LLM-Modulo Frameworks

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.

Can Large Language Models Really Improve by Self-critiquing Their Own Plans?

There have been widespread claims about Large Language Models (LLMs) being able to successfully verify or self-critique their candidate solutions in reasoning problems in an iterative mode. Intrigued by those claims, in this paper we set out to investigate the verification/self-critiquing abilities of large language models in the context of planning. We evaluate a planning system that employs LLMs for both plan generation and verification. We assess the verifier LLM's performance against ground-truth verification, the impact of self-critiquing on plan generation, and the influence of varying feedback levels on system performance. Using GPT-4, a state-of-the-art LLM, for both generation and verification, our findings reveal that self-critiquing appears to diminish plan generation performance, especially when compared to systems with external, sound verifiers and the LLM verifiers in that system produce a notable number of false positives, compromising the system's reliability. Additionally, the nature of feedback, whether binary or detailed, showed minimal impact on plan generation. Collectively, our results cast doubt on the effectiveness of LLMs in a self-critiquing, iterative framework for planning tasks.

On the Planning Abilities of Large Language Models -- A Critical Investigation

Intrigued by the claims of emergent reasoning capabilities in LLMs trained on general web corpora, in this paper, we set out to investigate their planning capabilities. We aim to evaluate (1) the effectiveness of LLMs in generating plans autonomously in commonsense planning tasks and (2) the potential of LLMs as a source of heuristic guidance for other agents (AI planners) in their planning tasks. We conduct a systematic study by generating a suite of instances on domains similar to the ones employed in the International Planning Competition and evaluate LLMs in two distinct modes: autonomous and heuristic. Our findings reveal that LLMs' ability to generate executable plans autonomously is rather limited, with the best model (GPT-4) having an average success rate of ~12% across the domains. However, the results in the heuristic mode show more promise. In the heuristic mode, we demonstrate that LLM-generated plans can improve the search process for underlying sound planners and additionally show that external verifiers can help provide feedback on the generated plans and back-prompt the LLM for better plan generation.

Leveraging Pre-trained Large Language Models to Construct and Utilize World Models for Model-based Task Planning

There is a growing interest in applying pre-trained large language models (LLMs) to planning problems. However, methods that use LLMs directly as planners are currently impractical due to several factors, including limited correctness of plans, strong reliance on feedback from interactions with simulators or even the actual environment, and the inefficiency in utilizing human feedback. In this work, we introduce a novel alternative paradigm that constructs an explicit world (domain) model in planning domain definition language (PDDL) and then uses it to plan with sound domain-independent planners. To address the fact that LLMs may not generate a fully functional PDDL model initially, we employ LLMs as an interface between PDDL and sources of corrective feedback, such as PDDL validators and humans. For users who lack a background in PDDL, we show that LLMs can translate PDDL into natural language and effectively encode corrective feedback back to the underlying domain model. Our framework not only enjoys the correctness guarantee offered by the external planners but also reduces human involvement by allowing users to correct domain models at the beginning, rather than inspecting and correcting (through interactive prompting) every generated plan as in previous work. On two IPC domains and a Household domain that is more complicated than commonly used benchmarks such as ALFWorld, we demonstrate that GPT-4 can be leveraged to produce high-quality PDDL models for over 40 actions, and the corrected PDDL models are then used to successfully solve 48 challenging planning tasks. Resources including the source code will be released at: https://guansuns.github.io/pages/llm-dm.

On the Planning Abilities of Large Language Models

Intrigued by the claims of emergent reasoning capabilities in LLMs trained on general web corpora, in this paper, we set out to investigate their planning capabilities. We aim to evaluate (1) how good LLMs are by themselves in generating and validating simple plans in commonsense planning tasks (of the type that humans are generally quite good at) and (2) how good LLMs are in being a source of heuristic guidance for other agents--either AI planners or human planners--in their planning tasks. To investigate these questions in a systematic rather than anecdotal manner, we start by developing a benchmark suite based on the kinds of domains employed in the International Planning Competition. On this benchmark, we evaluate LLMs in three modes: autonomous, heuristic and human-in-the-loop. Our results show that LLM's ability to autonomously generate executable plans is quite meager, averaging only about 3% success rate. The heuristic and human-in-the-loop modes show slightly more promise. In addition to these results, we also make our benchmark and evaluation tools available to support investigations by research community.