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

The LLM+LLM backprompting system had lower plan accuracy than the LLM+VAL system that used an external sound verifier.

“However, it falls short when compared to the LLM+VAL system.”

The LLM verifier's binary validity judgments matched ground truth on 61 of the 100 instances.

“As illustrated in Table 2, out of the 100 instances, the verifier accurately identifies 61 (or 61%).”

Whether the verifier provides binary feedback or detailed feedback on invalid plans has little effect on plan generation performance.

“Additionally, the nature of feedback, whether binary or detailed, showed minimal impact on plan generation.”

• Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · hedged

  “Our results indicate that the type of feedback-whether it's merely binary verification or combined with detailed feedback on the errors of the generated plan-doesn't significantly impact plan generation performance.”

• Also stated in: § 3. Inexecutable Action Feedback: If the plan is invalid and inexecutable, this feedback highlights the first inexecutable action and the unmet preconditions causing the inexecutability. · hedged

  “Interestingly, the amount of feedback provided to the LLM seems to have minimal influence on its performance improvement.”

Across the 100 instances, the LLM verifier produced 54 true positives and 38 false positives.

“Out of the 100 instances, the verifier LLM produces 54 true positives and 38 false positives (type-1 errors).”

• Also stated in: § 5.2 Analysis on the self-critique verifier · hedged

  “This indicates that the verifier deemed 38 plans, which were actually invalid, to be valid”

The LLM+LLM backprompting system achieved slightly higher plan accuracy than the generator-only method without backprompting.

“As illustrated in Table 1, the LLM+LLM backprompting approach slightly outperforms the nonbackprompting method in terms of accuracy.”

The LLM verifier in the LLM+LLM system produced a substantial number of false positives, marking invalid plans as valid.

“the LLM verifiers in that system produce a notable number of false positives, compromising the system's reliability.”

• Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain

  “The verifier LLM yields a significant number of false positives, which can severely undermine the system's reliability.”

• Also stated in: § 5.2 Analysis on the self-critique verifier · plain

  “Out of the 100 instances, the verifier LLM produces 54 true positives and 38 false positives (type-1 errors).”

In the evaluated planning system, iterative self-critiquing by the same LLM lowers plan generation accuracy compared with using an external sound verifier.

“our findings reveal that self-critiquing appears to diminish plan generation performance, especially when compared to systems with external, sound verifiers”

• Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · hedged

  “Our findings suggest that self-critiquing degrades the plan generation performance compared to when an external, sound verifier is utilized.”

The lower accuracy of the LLM+LLM system relative to LLM+VAL is likely explained by the many false positives made by the LLM verifier.

“The subpar performance of the LLM+LLM system, especially when compared to LLM+VAL, can likely be traced back to the substantial number of type-1 errors produced by the LLM verifier.”

Using a sound external verifier in the backprompting loop can substantially improve plan generation performance.

“It's evident that incorporating a sound verifier in the backprompting process can significantly enhance overall performance.”

The study's results undermine confidence in using LLMs as self-critiquing verifiers within an iterative planning framework.

“Collectively, our results cast doubt on the effectiveness of LLMs in a self-critiquing, iterative framework for planning tasks.”

• Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · hedged

  “Thus, our systematic investigation offers compelling preliminary evidence to question the efficacy of LLMs as verifiers for planning tasks within an iterative, self-critiquing framework.”

• Also stated in: § 6 Conclusion and Future Work · boosted

  “Our empirical evaluations on Blocksworld, a simple common-sense domain, highlighted the ineffectiveness of self-critiquing in LLMs in the context of planning.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Blocksworld is representative of classical planning tasks such that results generalize to planning tasks.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: GPT-4 is representative of LLMs for self-critiquing in planning.

The main problem with LLM self-critiquing in planning is the LLM's binary verification ability, not the level of detail in feedback.

“suggesting that the core issue lies in the LLM's binary verification capabilities rather than the granularity of feedback.”

Using an LLM verifier that produces many false positives in settings where plan correctness is critical can have severe negative consequences.

“which can be catastrophic if such a system is deployed in scenarios where correctness is paramount.”

• Also stated in: § 6 Conclusion and Future Work · plain

  “which be detrimental to the overall system's reliability, particularly in domains where the correctness of plans is paramount.”