LLMs Still Can't Plan; Can LRMs? A Preliminary Evaluation of OpenAI's o1 on PlanBench
1
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The provided paper evaluates the planning capabilities of OpenAI's o1 model, a large language model (LLM), on the PlanBench benchmark.
- It finds that state-of-the-art LLMs still struggle with planning tasks, unlike traditional planning systems.
- The paper explores the potential of language-rooted models (LRMs) as an alternative approach to improve planning abilities.
Plain English Explanation
The paper investigates whether today's most advanced language models can effectively plan and solve complex problems. Planning is the ability to devise a sequence of actions to achieve a goal, which is a key cognitive skill.
The researchers evaluated the performance of OpenAI's o1 model, a large language model, on the PlanBench benchmark, a set of planning tasks. They found that despite its impressive language understanding and generation capabilities, o1 struggled to plan effectively, often failing to find solutions or producing suboptimal plans.
This suggests that current LLMs are limited in their ability to engage in complex, multi-step reasoning required for planning. The researchers propose that an alternative approach, called language-rooted models (LRMs), may be better suited for planning tasks. LRMs aim to combine the strengths of language models with more structured reasoning capabilities.
The paper provides a preliminary evaluation of LRMs on planning benchmarks, offering insights into the potential of this approach to overcome the planning limitations of current state-of-the-art LLMs.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a preliminary evaluation of OpenAI's o1 model, a state-of-the-art large language model, on the PlanBench benchmark. PlanBench is a suite of planning tasks that require models to devise a sequence of actions to achieve a given goal.
The researchers found that despite o1's strong performance on natural language tasks, it struggled to effectively plan and solve the problems in PlanBench. The model often failed to find solutions or produced suboptimal plans, indicating that current LLMs are limited in their ability to engage in the complex, multi-step reasoning required for planning.
To address this limitation, the paper explores the potential of language-rooted models (LRMs) as an alternative approach. LRMs aim to combine the strengths of language models with more structured reasoning capabilities, potentially better suited for planning tasks.
The paper provides a preliminary evaluation of LRMs on PlanBench, offering insights into the performance and potential of this approach to overcome the planning limitations of current state-of-the-art LLMs.
Critical Analysis
The paper highlights a key limitation of current state-of-the-art large language models: their inability to effectively plan and solve complex, multi-step problems. This is a significant limitation, as planning is a crucial cognitive skill with many real-world applications.
The paper's findings suggest that the impressive language understanding and generation capabilities of LLMs may not directly translate to strong planning abilities. The researchers propose that language-rooted models (LRMs) may be a more promising approach, but further research is needed to fully evaluate the potential of this approach.
One potential limitation of the study is the scope of the evaluation, which is focused on a single model (o1) and a specific benchmark (PlanBench). It would be valuable to expand the analysis to include a wider range of LLMs and planning benchmarks to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the field.
Additionally, the paper does not provide a detailed analysis of the specific planning capabilities and limitations of the o1 model, which could offer insights into the underlying challenges and potential avenues for improvement.
Overall, the paper provides an important contribution to the ongoing exploration of AI planning capabilities and highlights the need for continued research into alternative approaches, such as LRMs, to address the planning limitations of current state-of-the-art language models.
Conclusion
The provided paper evaluates the planning capabilities of OpenAI's o1 model, a state-of-the-art large language model, and finds that despite its impressive language abilities, o1 struggles to effectively plan and solve complex, multi-step problems.
This suggests that current LLMs are limited in their ability to engage in the type of structured reasoning required for planning tasks. To address this limitation, the paper explores the potential of language-rooted models (LRMs) as an alternative approach that may be better suited for planning.
The preliminary evaluation of LRMs on planning benchmarks provides insights into the potential of this approach to overcome the planning limitations of state-of-the-art language models. This research highlights the need for continued exploration of AI planning capabilities and the development of more advanced models that can effectively plan and solve complex, real-world problems.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
1
LLMs Still Can't Plan; Can LRMs? A Preliminary Evaluation of OpenAI's o1 on PlanBench
Karthik Valmeekam, Kaya Stechly, Subbarao Kambhampati
The ability to plan a course of action that achieves a desired state of affairs has long been considered a core competence of intelligent agents and has been an integral part of AI research since its inception. With the advent of large language models (LLMs), there has been considerable interest in the question of whether or not they possess such planning abilities. PlanBench, an extensible benchmark we developed in 2022, soon after the release of GPT3, has remained an important tool for evaluating the planning abilities of LLMs. Despite the slew of new private and open source LLMs since GPT3, progress on this benchmark has been surprisingly slow. OpenAI claims that their recent o1 (Strawberry) model has been specifically constructed and trained to escape the normal limitations of autoregressive LLMs--making it a new kind of model: a Large Reasoning Model (LRM). Using this development as a catalyst, this paper takes a comprehensive look at how well current LLMs and new LRMs do on PlanBench. As we shall see, while o1's performance is a quantum improvement on the benchmark, outpacing the competition, it is still far from saturating it. This improvement also brings to the fore questions about accuracy, efficiency, and guarantees which must be considered before deploying such systems.
Read more9/23/2024
0
Planning in Strawberry Fields: Evaluating and Improving the Planning and Scheduling Capabilities of LRM o1
Karthik Valmeekam, Kaya Stechly, Atharva Gundawar, Subbarao Kambhampati
The ability to plan a course of action that achieves a desired state of affairs has long been considered a core competence of intelligent agents and has been an integral part of AI research since its inception. With the advent of large language models (LLMs), there has been considerable interest in the question of whether or not they possess such planning abilities, but -- despite the slew of new private and open source LLMs since GPT3 -- progress has remained slow. OpenAI claims that their recent o1 (Strawberry) model has been specifically constructed and trained to escape the normal limitations of autoregressive LLMs -- making it a new kind of model: a Large Reasoning Model (LRM). In this paper, we evaluate the planning capabilities of two LRMs (o1-preview and o1-mini) on both planning and scheduling benchmarks. We see that while o1 does seem to offer significant improvements over autoregressive LLMs, this comes at a steep inference cost, while still failing to provide any guarantees over what it generates. We also show that combining o1 models with external verifiers -- in a so-called LRM-Modulo system -- guarantees the correctness of the combined system's output while further improving performance.
Read more10/4/2024
0
On The Planning Abilities of OpenAI's o1 Models: Feasibility, Optimality, and Generalizability
Kevin Wang, Junbo Li, Neel P. Bhatt, Yihan Xi, Qiang Liu, Ufuk Topcu, Zhangyang Wang
Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have showcased their ability to perform complex reasoning tasks, but their effectiveness in planning remains underexplored. In this study, we evaluate the planning capabilities of OpenAI's o1 models across a variety of benchmark tasks, focusing on three key aspects: feasibility, optimality, and generalizability. Through empirical evaluations on constraint-heavy tasks (e.g., $textit{Barman}$, $textit{Tyreworld}$) and spatially complex environments (e.g., $textit{Termes}$, $textit{Floortile}$), we highlight o1-preview's strengths in self-evaluation and constraint-following, while also identifying bottlenecks in decision-making and memory management, particularly in tasks requiring robust spatial reasoning. Our results reveal that o1-preview outperforms GPT-4 in adhering to task constraints and managing state transitions in structured environments. However, the model often generates suboptimal solutions with redundant actions and struggles to generalize effectively in spatially complex tasks. This pilot study provides foundational insights into the planning limitations of LLMs, offering key directions for future research on improving memory management, decision-making, and generalization in LLM-based planning.
Read more10/2/2024
0
LLMs Can't Plan, But Can Help Planning in LLM-Modulo Frameworks
Subbarao Kambhampati, Karthik Valmeekam, Lin Guan, Mudit Verma, Kaya Stechly, Siddhant Bhambri, Lucas Saldyt, Anil Murthy
There is considerable confusion about the role of Large Language Models (LLMs) in planning and reasoning tasks. On one side are over-optimistic claims that LLMs can indeed do these tasks with just the right prompting or self-verification strategies. On the other side are perhaps over-pessimistic claims that all that LLMs are good for in planning/reasoning tasks are as mere translators of the problem specification from one syntactic format to another, and ship the problem off to external symbolic solvers. In this position paper, we take the view that both these extremes are misguided. We argue that auto-regressive LLMs cannot, by themselves, do planning or self-verification (which is after all a form of reasoning), and shed some light on the reasons for misunderstandings in the literature. We will also argue that LLMs should be viewed as universal approximate knowledge sources that have much more meaningful roles to play in planning/reasoning tasks beyond simple front-end/back-end format translators. We present a vision of {bf LLM-Modulo Frameworks} that combine the strengths of LLMs with external model-based verifiers in a tighter bi-directional interaction regime. We will show how the models driving the external verifiers themselves can be acquired with the help of LLMs. We will also argue that rather than simply pipelining LLMs and symbolic components, this LLM-Modulo Framework provides a better neuro-symbolic approach that offers tighter integration between LLMs and symbolic components, and allows extending the scope of model-based planning/reasoning regimes towards more flexible knowledge, problem and preference specifications.
Read more6/13/2024