PreprintCited by 4

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

NATURAL PLAN: Benchmarking LLMs on Natural Language Planning

Zheng, Huaixiu Steven, Mishra, Swaroop, Zhang, Hugh, Chen, Xinyun, Chen, Minmin, Nova, Azade, Hou, Le, Cheng, Heng-Tze, Le, Quoc V., Chi, Ed H., Zhou, Denny·2024·arXiv

Abstract

We introduce NATURAL PLAN, a realistic planning benchmark in natural language containing 3 key tasks: Trip Planning, Meeting Planning, and Calendar Scheduling. We focus our evaluation on the planning capabilities of LLMs with full information on the task, by providing outputs from tools such as Google Flights, Google Maps, and Google Calendar as contexts to the models. This eliminates the need for a tool-use environment for evaluating LLMs on Planning. We observe that NATURAL PLAN is a challenging benchmark for state of the art models. For example, in Trip Planning, GPT-4 and Gemini 1.5 Pro could only achieve 31.1% and 34.8% solve rate respectively. We find that model performance drops drastically as the complexity of the problem increases: all models perform below 5% when there are 10 cities, highlighting a significant gap in planning in natural language for SoTA LLMs. We also conduct extensive ablation studies on NATURAL PLAN to further shed light on the (in)effectiveness of approaches such as self-correction, few-shot generalization, and in-context planning with long-contexts on improving LLM planning.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2406.04520

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • SoTA LLM agents perform poorly on the Natural Plan benchmark, particularly as complexity increases.

    “SoTA LLM agents perform poorly on this benchmark, particularly as complexity increases.”

    From Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Zheng et al., 2024

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Zheng, H. S., Mishra, S., Zhang, H., Chen, X., Chen, M., Nova, A., Hou, L., Cheng, H.-T., Le, Q. V., Chi, E. H., & Zhou, D.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
References
1
Type
Preprint

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