HackerPapers

arXiv:2206.10498cs.CL

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

Karthik Valmeekam, Matthew Marquez, Alberto Olmo, Sarath Sreedharan, Subbarao Kambhampati

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.

arXiv comments
NeurIPS 2023 Track on Datasets and Benchmarks
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.CLComputation and Language cs.AIArtificial Intelligence

On Hacker News

Linked by 2 identifiable commenters in 2 comments across 2 threads, from May 2023 to Sep 2023. Found in 1 HN submission from Apr 2023 to Apr 2023. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments2 threads

  1. Can LLMs Reason and Plan? 1 comment
    • The article itself is very assertive and makes a lot of generalizations, but if you look at the source of their claims [1] you see that in the first study they are using GPT-3.5 and achieve only a 5% score on a reasoning test that largely relies on spatial intuition - some boxes…

      epupsView on HNParent context

    • There are a lot of arXiv papers where people develop test suites for chatbots such as https://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.10498.pdf

      PaulHouleView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.