Chain of Thoughtlessness? An Analysis of CoT in Planning
Open accessAbstract
Large language model (LLM) performance on reasoning problems typically does not generalize out of distribution. Previous work has claimed that this can be mitigated with chain of thought prompting-a method of demonstrating 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 examines 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. We also create scalable variants of three domains commonly studied in previous CoT papers and demonstrate the existence of similar failure modes. 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 but depend on carefully engineering highly problem specific prompts. This spotlights drawbacks of chain of thought, especially the sharp tradeoff between possible performance gains and the amount of human labor necessary to generate examples with correct reasoning traces.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In reasoning domains like Blocksworld, previous work has shown that CoT fails to generalize and is not particularly robust.
“In particular, in reasoning domains like Blocksworld, previous work has shown that they fail to generalize and are not particularly robust [40].”
From On the Self-Verification Limitations of Large Language Models on Reasoning and Planning Tasks (2024) · cites this paper as [40]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Still being checked.
Research works printed but not linked: 52
- Marah I Abdin, Suriya Gunasekar, Varun Chandrasekaran, Jerry Li, Mert Yuksekgonul, Ra- hee Ghosh Peshawaria, Ranjita Naik, and Besmira Nushi. Kitab: Evaluating llms on constraint satisfaction for information retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15511, 2023. · arXiv
- Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. · arXiv
- Cem Anil, Yuhuai Wu, Anders Andreassen, Aitor Lewkowycz, Vedant Misra, Vinay Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Guy Gur-Ari, Ethan Dyer, and Behnam Neyshabur. Exploring length gen- eralization in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:38546-38556, 2022.
- Guangsheng Bao, Hongbo Zhang, Linyi Yang, Cunxiang Wang, and Yue Zhang. Llms with chain-of-thought are non-causal reasoners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16048, 2024. · arXiv
- Maciej Besta, Florim Memedi, Zhenyu Zhang, Robert Gerstenberger, Nils Blach, Piotr Nyczyk, Marcin Copik, Grzegorz Kwaśniewski, Jürgen Müller, Lukas Gianinazzi, et al. Topologies of reasoning: Demystifying chains, trees, and graphs of thoughts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14295, 2024. · arXiv
- Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, et al. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712, 2023. · arXiv
- Xiaoxue Cheng, Junyi Li, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. Chainlm: Empowering large language models with improved chain-of-thought prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14312, 2024. · arXiv
- Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021. · arXiv
- Antonia Creswell and Murray Shanahan. Faithful reasoning using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.14271, 2022. · arXiv
- Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Zhiyong Wu, Baobao Chang, Xu Sun, Jingjing Xu, and Zhifang Sui. A survey on in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00234, 2022. · arXiv
- Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch. Improv- ing factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14325, 2023. · arXiv
- Nouha Dziri, Ximing Lu, Melanie Sclar, Xiang Lorraine Li, Liwei Jiang, Bill Yuchen Lin, Sean Welleck, Peter West, Chandra Bhagavatula, Ronan Le Bras, et al. Faith and fate: Limits of transformers on compositionality. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
- Guhao Feng, Bohang Zhang, Yuntian Gu, Haotian Ye, Di He, and Liwei Wang. Towards revealing the mystery behind chain of thought: a theoretical perspective. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
- Silin Gao, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Ping Yu, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Ramakanth Pasunuru, Olga Golovneva, Koustuv Sinha, Asli Celikyilmaz, Antoine Bosselut, and Tianlu Wang. Efficient tool use with chain-of-abstraction reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.17464, 2024. · arXiv
- Gaël Gendron, Qiming Bao, Michael Witbrock, and Gillian Dobbie. Large language models are not abstract reasoners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19555, 2023. · arXiv
- Mor Geva, Daniel Khashabi, Elad Segal, Tushar Khot, Dan Roth, and Jonathan Berant. Did aristotle use a laptop? a question answering benchmark with implicit reasoning strategies. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:346-361, 2021.
- Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yelong Shen, Yujiu Yang, Nan Duan, and Weizhu Chen. Critic: Large language models can self-correct with tool-interactive critiquing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11738, 2023. · arXiv
- Ruixin Hong, Hongming Zhang, Xinyu Pang, Dong Yu, and Changshui Zhang. A closer look at the self-verification abilities of large language models in logical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07954, 2023. · arXiv
- Richard Howey, Derek Long, and Maria Fox. VAL: Automatic plan validation, continuous effects and mixed initiative planning using PDDL. In 16th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pages 294-301. IEEE, 2004.
- Jie Huang, Xinyun Chen, Swaroop Mishra, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Adams Wei Yu, Xinying Song, and Denny Zhou. Large language models cannot self-correct reasoning yet. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023.
- Dongwei Jiang, Jingyu Zhang, Orion Weller, Nathaniel Weir, Benjamin Van Durme, and Daniel Khashabi. Self-[in] correct: Llms struggle with refining self-generated responses. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04298, 2024. · arXiv
- Yeo Wei Jie, Ranjan Satapathy, Goh Siow Mong, Erik Cambria, et al. How interpretable are rea- soning explanations from prompting large language models? arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11863, 2024. · arXiv
- Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:22199-22213, 2022.
- Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Subhro Roy, Aida Amini, Nate Kushman, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Mawps: A math word problem repository. In Proceedings of the 2016 conference of the north american chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, pages 1152-1157, 2016.
- Zhan Ling, Yunhao Fang, Xuanlin Li, Zhiao Huang, Mingu Lee, Roland Memisevic, and Hao Su. Deductive verification of chain-of-thought reasoning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
- Qing Lyu, Shreya Havaldar, Adam Stein, Li Zhang, Delip Rao, Eric Wong, Marianna Apid- ianaki, and Chris Callison-Burch. Faithful chain-of-thought reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13379, 2023. · arXiv
- Shen-Yun Miao, Chao-Chun Liang, and Keh-Yih Su. A diverse corpus for evaluating and developing english math word problem solvers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.15772, 2021. · arXiv
- Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert. An introduction to computational geometry. Cambridge tiass., HIT, 479(480):104, 1969.
- Maxwell Nye, Anders Johan Andreassen, Guy Gur-Ari, Henryk Michalewski, Jacob Austin, David Bieber, David Dohan, Aitor Lewkowycz, Maarten Bosma, David Luan, et al. Show your work: Scratchpads for intermediate computation with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00114, 2021. · arXiv
- Flavio Petruzzellis, Alberto Testolin, and Alessandro Sperduti. Benchmarking gpt-4 on algorithmic problems: A systematic evaluation of prompting strategies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17396, 2024. · arXiv
- Jing Qian, Hong Wang, Zekun Li, Shiyang Li, and Xifeng Yan. Limitations of language models in arithmetic and symbolic induction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.05051, 2022. · arXiv
- Shuofei Qiao, Yixin Ou, Ningyu Zhang, Xiang Chen, Yunzhi Yao, Shumin Deng, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen. Reasoning with language model prompting: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09597, 2022. · arXiv
- Abulhair Saparov and He He. Language models are greedy reasoners: A systematic formal analysis of chain-of-thought. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.01240, 2022. · arXiv
- Rylan Schaeffer, Kateryna Pistunova, Samar Khanna, Sarthak Consul, and Sanmi Koyejo. Invalid logic, equivalent gains: The bizarreness of reasoning in language model prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.10573, 2023. · arXiv
- Freda Shi, Mirac Suzgun, Markus Freitag, Xuezhi Wang, Suraj Srivats, Soroush Vosoughi, Hyung Won Chung, Yi Tay, Sebastian Ruder, Denny Zhou, et al. Language models are multilingual chain-of-thought reasoners. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022.
- John Slaney and Sylvie Thiébaux. Linear time near-optimal planning in the blocks world. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1208-1214, 1996.
- Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, et al. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04615, 2022. · arXiv
- Kaya Stechly, Karthik Valmeekam, and Subbarao Kambhampati. On the self-verification limitations of large language models on reasoning and planning tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08115, 2024. · arXiv
- Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Scales, Nathanael Schärli, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yi Tay, Hyung Won Chung, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Quoc V Le, Ed H Chi, Denny Zhou, et al. Challenging big- bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09261, 2022. · arXiv
- Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. Commonsenseqa: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. In Proceedings of NAACL- HLT, pages 4149-4158, 2019.
- Miles Turpin, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, and Samuel Bowman. Language models don't always say what they think: unfaithful explanations in chain-of-thought prompting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
- Karthik Valmeekam, Matthew Marquez, Alberto Olmo, Sarath Sreedharan, and Subbarao Kambhampati. Planbench: An extensible benchmark for evaluating large language models on planning and reasoning about change. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
- Karthik Valmeekam, Matthew Marquez, Sarath Sreedharan, and Subbarao Kambhampati. On the planning abilities of large language models-a critical investigation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
- Jianing Wang, Qiushi Sun, Nuo Chen, Xiang Li, and Ming Gao. Boosting language models reasoning with chain-of-knowledge prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.06427, 2023. · arXiv
- Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V Le, Ed H Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022.
- Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824-24837, 2022.
- Yiran Wu, Feiran Jia, Shaokun Zhang, Qingyun Wu, Hangyu Li, Erkang Zhu, Yue Wang, Yin Tat Lee, Richard Peng, and Chi Wang. An empirical study on challenging math problem solving with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01337, 2023. · arXiv
- Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik R Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022.
- JD Zamfirescu-Pereira, Richmond Y Wong, Bjoern Hartmann, and Qian Yang. Why johnny can't prompt: how non-ai experts try (and fail) to design llm prompts. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1-21, 2023.
- Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, and Alex Smola. Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2022.
- Denny Zhou, Nathanael Schärli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Claire Cui, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, et al. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10625, 2022. · arXiv
- Hattie Zhou, Azade Nova, Hugo Larochelle, Aaron Courville, Behnam Neyshabur, and Hanie Sedghi. Teaching algorithmic reasoning via in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09066, 2022. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
From text to insight: large language models for chemical data extraction
Schilling-Wilhelmi, M., Ríos-García, M., Shabih, S., Gil, M. V., Miret, S., Koch, C. T., Marquez, J. A., & Jablonka, K. M. (2024) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/d4cs00913d · Cited by 155 · see citing works
Limitations of large language models in clinical problem-solving arising from inflexible reasoning
Kim, J., Podlasek, A., Shidara, K., Liu, F., Alaa, A., & Bernardo, D. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-22940-0 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Prabhakar, A., Griffiths, T. L., & McCoy, R. T. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.212 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
LLMs Can't Plan, But Can Help Planning in LLM-Modulo Frameworks
Kambhampati, S., Valmeekam, K., Guan, L., Verma, M., Stechly, K., Bhambri, S., Saldyt, L., & Murthy, A. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.01817 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Self-citationYang, Y., Chen, S., Zhu, Y., Liu, X., Pan, S., & Wang, X. (2024) · La Houille Blanche · doi:10.1080/27678490.2024.2397337 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
(How) Do reasoning models reason?
Subbarao Kambhampati, B., Stechly, K., & Valmeekam, K. (2025) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.15339 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Self-citationGeneral-Purpose Models for the Chemical Sciences: LLMs and Beyond
Alampara, N., Aneesh, A., Ríos-García, M., Mirza, A., Schilling-Wilhelmi, M., Aghajani, A. A., Sun, M., Prastalo, G., & Jablonka, K. M. (2026) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.5c00583 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
On the Self-Verification Limitations of Large Language Models on Reasoning and Planning Tasks
Stechly, K., Valmeekam, K., & Kambhampati, S. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.08115 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citationData-Driven Vision-Language Models for Remote Sensing: A survey
Zhou, Y., Zhao, S., Yang, X., Li, R., Zhang, T., Lan, M., Chen, C., Ma, L., He, H., & Li, K. (2026) · IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine · doi:10.1109/mgrs.2026.3696441 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
How metacognitive architectures remember their own thoughts: a systematic scoping review
Nolte, R., Pomarlan, M., Janssen, A., Beßler, D., Javanmardi, K., Jongebloed, S., Porzel, R., Bateman, J. F., Beetz, M., & Malaka, R. (2026) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-026-11669-5 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
A New Paradigm of Business Computing Driven by Domain-specific Foundation Models
Yang, S., Jin, J., & Pan, Y. (2025) · 中国科学基金 · doi:10.3724/bnsfc-2025.06.12.0004
SagaLLM: Persistent Context Management, Constraint Validation, and Transaction Guarantees
Chang, E. Y. (2025) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3749421.3749435
Feasibility Study on Reactor Preliminary Design via Fine-Tuning of Large Language Models
Zhang, B., Lai, W., Huang, H., Ren, J., Chen, Q., Zhang, B., & He, C. (2026) · Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.6c00091
Li, X., Feng, A., Jing, N., Li, Z., Li, Y., Huang, K., & Du, X. (2026) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3770855.3817513
The understanding gap: when functionality looks like understanding
Firt, E., & Rosenberg‐Kima, R. B. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-03223-2
Li, X., Yishun, W., Li, W., & Li, Z. (2026) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1145/3774748.3795663
Synthetic Repo-level Bug Dataset for Training Automated Program Repair Models
Minh, P. V. T., Phan, H. N., Phan, N. H., Le, C. A., Nguyen, T. N., & Bui, N. D. Q. (2026) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1145/3744916.3764562
Generative AI Technologies, Techniques and Tensions: A Primer
Behrens, J. T. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-24819-0_2 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
León, M. (2026) · WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on SYSTEMS archive · doi:10.37394/23202.2026.25.49
Contrastive Chain-of-Thought Decoding for Large Language Models to Mitigate Inference Hallucination
Long, Q., Li, X., Liu, Y., Wu, H., & Lin, L. (2026) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn69854.2026.11729174
- Authors
- Stechly, K., Valmeekam, K., & Kambhampati, S.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- Pages
- 29106-29141
- ISSN
- 1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2405.04776
- OpenAlex
- W4415798414
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 4.62
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Office of Naval Research
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban Planning and Governance
- Keywords
- chain-of-thought, planning, thoughtlessness
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
