Robust Planning with LLM-Modulo Framework: Case Study in Travel Planning
Open accessAbstract
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.
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?
LLMs can enumerate the type of critics needed to validate a plan with light human supervision.
“we were able to use the LLM itself to enumerate the type of critics needed to validate the plan (with light human supervision).”
From LLMs Can't Plan, But Can Help Planning in LLM-Modulo Frameworks (2024) · cites this paper as Gundawar et al., 2024
Section 4.3, “Recovering critics from LLMs” (page not provided), reports that GPT-4-Turbo generated implementations of critics that typically needed only minimal modifications. It does not report that the LLM enumerated which types of critics were needed: the prompts supplied each critic’s objective, and the generated implementations were compared with existing critics. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLLM-Modulo based agentification with automated critics in the loop significantly improves performance (6x of baselines) on the travel planning benchmark, even with a limit of 10 back prompting cycles and weaker models such as GPT-3.5turbo.
“LLM-Modulo based agentification with automated critics in the loop significantly improves the performance (6x of baselines) even with a limit of 10 back prompting cycles, and weaker models such as GPT-3.5turbo.”
From LLMs Can't Plan, But Can Help Planning in LLM-Modulo Frameworks (2024) · cites this paper as Gundawar et al., 2024
The Introduction and Experiments and Results report improved performance with LLM-Modulo and critics, including a rise from 0% to 5% final pass rate for GPT-3.5-Turbo. The Plan Backboard and Reformatter section sets a maximum of 10 iterations. However, the paper reports a 4.6× improvement for GPT-4-Turbo, not the claimed 6×; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLLMs reliably play the role of reformatter, converting free form travel plans into structured plans parseable by the critics.
“LLMs reliably play the role of reformatter as well, converting free form travel plans into structured plans parseable by the critics for backprompts or plan evaluation.”
From LLMs Can't Plan, But Can Help Planning in LLM-Modulo Frameworks (2024) · cites this paper as Gundawar et al., 2024
LLMs can successfully implement functions corresponding to hard critics and several common-sense critics.
“we also find that LLMs can successfully implement functions corresponding to hard critics and several common-sense critics.”
From LLMs Can't Plan, But Can Help Planning in LLM-Modulo Frameworks (2024) · cites this paper as Gundawar et al., 2024
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: 14
- Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yi, X., Wang, C., Wang, Y., et al. A survey on evaluation of large language models. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 15(3):1-45, 2024.
- Hsieh, C.-Y., Chen, S.-A., Li, C.-L., Fujii, Y., Ratner, A., Lee, C.-Y., Krishna, R., and Pfister, T. Tool documen- tation enables zero-shot tool-usage with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00675, 2023. · arXiv
- Kambhampati, S. Can large language models reason and plan? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1534 (1):15-18, 2024.
- Paranjape, B., Lundberg, S., Singh, S., Hajishirzi, H., Zettle- moyer, L., and Ribeiro, M. T. Art: Automatic multi-step reasoning and tool-use for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.09014, 2023. · arXiv
- Schick, T., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Dessì, R., Raileanu, R., Lomeli, M., Hambro, E., Zettlemoyer, L., Cancedda, N., and Scialom, T. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
- Shinn, N., Cassano, F., Gopinath, A., Narasimhan, K., and Yao, S. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal rein- forcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
- Valmeekam, K., Olmo, A., Sreedharan, S., and Kambham- pati, S. Large language models still can't plan (a bench- mark for llms on planning and reasoning about change). arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.10498, 2022. · arXiv
- Verma, M., Bhambri, S., and Kambhampati, S. Theory of mind abilities of large language models in human-robot interaction: An illusion? In Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI '24. ACM, March 2024a. doi: 10.1145/ 3610978.3640767. URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1145/3610978.3640767. · DOI
- Verma, M., Bhambri, S., and Kambhampati, S. Theory of mind abilities of large language models in human-robot interaction: An illusion? In Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 36-45, 2024b.
- Wang, L., Ma, C., Feng, X., Zhang, Z., Yang, H., Zhang, J., Chen, Z., Tang, J., Chen, X., Lin, Y., et al. A survey on large language model based autonomous agents. Frontiers of Computer Science, 18(6):1-26, 2024.
- Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., Zhou, D., et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824-24837, 2022.
- Xi, Z., Chen, W., Guo, X., He, W., Ding, Y., Hong, B., Zhang, M., Wang, J., Jin, S., Zhou, E., et al. The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07864, 2023. · arXiv
- Xie, J., Zhang, K., Chen, J., Zhu, T., Lou, R., Tian, Y., Xiao, Y., and Su, Y. Travelplanner: A benchmark for real-world planning with language agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01622, 2024. · arXiv
- Yao, S., Zhao, J., Yu, D., Du, N., Shafran, I., Narasimhan, K., and Cao, Y. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629, 2022. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How close is AI to human-level intelligence?
Ananthaswamy, A. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-024-03905-1 · Cited by 31 · 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-citationAutomated Travel Planning Via Multi-Agent Systems and Real-Time IntelligencePreprint
Singh, A. V., Madhogaria, R., Misra, A., & Elakiya, E. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5089025 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
TRIP: A Bi-level Travel Routing Intelligent Planner Informed from Human Planning Behaviors
Liu, Y., Zhang, R., Chen, Y., Sun, L., & Zhu, T. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data · doi:10.1145/3836768
- Authors
- Gundawar, A., Verma, M., Guan, L., Valmeekam, K., Bhambri, S., & Kambhampati, S.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2405.20625
- OpenAlex
- W4399317195
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- large language models, tourism planning, itinerary generation, robust planning, LLM reasoning, chain-of-thought prompting, GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-3.5-turbo
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
