PreprintCited by 1AI-based Problem Solving and PlanningArtificial Intelligence in GamesReinforcement Learning in Robotics

Enhancing LLM Planning Capabilities through Intrinsic Self-Critique

Open access
Bohnet, Bernd, Kamienny, Pierre-Alexandre, Sedghi, Hanie, Gorur, Dilan, Awasthi, Pranjal, Parisi, Aaron, Swersky, Kevin, Liu, Rosanne +2 more·2025·arXiv

Abstract

We demonstrate an approach for LLMs to critique their \emph{own} answers with the goal of enhancing their performance that leads to significant improvements over established planning benchmarks. Despite the findings of earlier research that has cast doubt on the effectiveness of LLMs leveraging self critique methods, we show significant performance gains on planning datasets in the Blocksworld domain through intrinsic self-critique, without external source such as a verifier. We also demonstrate similar improvements on Logistics and Mini-grid datasets, exceeding strong baseline accuracies. We employ a few-shot learning technique and progressively extend it to a many-shot approach as our base method and demonstrate that it is possible to gain substantial improvement on top of this already competitive approach by employing an iterative process for correction and refinement. We illustrate how self-critique can significantly boost planning performance. Our empirical results present new state-of-the-art on the class of models considered, namely LLM model checkpoints from October 2024. Our primary focus lies on the method itself, demonstrating intrinsic self-improvement capabilities that are applicable regardless of the specific model version, and we believe that applying our method to more complex search techniques and more capable models will lead to even better performance.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2512.24103

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Robust planning is achieved through the realization of internal worlds characterized by consistency in causality.

    “Consequently, planning with robustness is achieved through the realization of internal worlds characterized by consistency in causality (Tang et al., 2024a; Kim and won Hwang, 2025; Bohnet et al., 2025).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bohnet, B., Kamienny, P.-A., Sedghi, H., Gorur, D., Awasthi, P., Parisi, A., Swersky, K., Liu, R., Nova, A., & Fiedel, N.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7117989186
Cited by
0
References
1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence in Games
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
Keywords
self-criticism, large language models, automated planning, few-shot learning, Blocksworld

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