Enhancing LLM Planning Capabilities through Intrinsic Self-Critique
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From From Storage to Experience: A Survey on the Evolution of LLM Agent Memory Mechanisms (2026) · cites this paper as Bohnet et al., 2025
Cites
Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models
Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q., Chi, E., Narang, S., Chowdhery, A., & Zhou, D. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.11171 · Cited by 829 · cited 5× · see citing works
“We optionally apply Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023) which uses majority voting.”
Influential
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
From Storage to Experience: A Survey on the Evolution of LLM Agent Memory Mechanisms
Luo, J., Tian, Y., Cao, C., Luo, Z., Lin, H., Li, K., Kong, C., Yang, R., & Ma, J. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.2069 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“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).”
- 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)
- arXiv
- 2512.24103
- OpenAlex
- W7117989186
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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