Daily Papers

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been the subject of active research, significantly advancing the field of Natural Language Processing (NLP). From BERT to BLOOM, LLMs have surpassed state-of-the-art results in various natural language tasks such as question answering, summarization, and text generation. Many ongoing efforts focus on understanding LLMs' capabilities, including their knowledge of the world, syntax, and semantics. However, extending the textual prowess of LLMs to symbolic reasoning has been slow and predominantly focused on tackling problems related to the mathematical field. In this paper, we explore the use of LLMs for automated planning - a branch of AI concerned with the realization of action sequences (plans) to achieve a goal, typically executed by intelligent agents, autonomous robots, and unmanned vehicles. We introduce Plansformer; an LLM fine-tuned on planning problems and capable of generating plans with favorable behavior in terms of correctness and length with reduced knowledge-engineering efforts. We also demonstrate the adaptability of Plansformer in solving different planning domains with varying complexities, owing to the transfer learning abilities of LLMs. For one configuration of Plansformer, we achieve ~97% valid plans, out of which ~95% are optimal for Towers of Hanoi - a puzzle-solving domain.

LLMs have achieved remarkable breakthroughs in reasoning, insights, and tool use, but chaining these abilities into extended processes at the scale of those routinely executed by humans, organizations, and societies has remained out of reach. The models have a persistent error rate that prevents scale-up: for instance, recent experiments in the Towers of Hanoi benchmark domain showed that the process inevitably becomes derailed after at most a few hundred steps. Thus, although LLM research is often still benchmarked on tasks with relatively few dependent logical steps, there is increasing attention on the ability (or inability) of LLMs to perform long range tasks. This paper describes MAKER, the first system that successfully solves a task with over one million LLM steps with zero errors, and, in principle, scales far beyond this level. The approach relies on an extreme decomposition of a task into subtasks, each of which can be tackled by focused microagents. The high level of modularity resulting from the decomposition allows error correction to be applied at each step through an efficient multi-agent voting scheme. This combination of extreme decomposition and error correction makes scaling possible. Thus, the results suggest that instead of relying on continual improvement of current LLMs, massively decomposed agentic processes (MDAPs) may provide a way to efficiently solve problems at the level of organizations and societies.

Shojaee et al. (2025) report that Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) exhibit "accuracy collapse" on planning puzzles beyond certain complexity thresholds. We demonstrate that their findings primarily reflect experimental design limitations rather than fundamental reasoning failures. Our analysis reveals three critical issues: (1) Tower of Hanoi experiments systematically exceed model output token limits at reported failure points, with models explicitly acknowledging these constraints in their outputs; (2) The authors' automated evaluation framework fails to distinguish between reasoning failures and practical constraints, leading to misclassification of model capabilities; (3) Most concerningly, their River Crossing benchmarks include mathematically impossible instances for N > 5 due to insufficient boat capacity, yet models are scored as failures for not solving these unsolvable problems. When we control for these experimental artifacts, by requesting generating functions instead of exhaustive move lists, preliminary experiments across multiple models indicate high accuracy on Tower of Hanoi instances previously reported as complete failures. These findings highlight the importance of careful experimental design when evaluating AI reasoning capabilities.

Recent large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated great potential toward intelligent agents and next-gen automation, but there currently lacks a systematic benchmark for evaluating LLMs' abilities as agents. We introduce SmartPlay: both a challenging benchmark and a methodology for evaluating LLMs as agents. SmartPlay consists of 6 different games, including Rock-Paper-Scissors, Tower of Hanoi, Minecraft. Each game features a unique setting, providing up to 20 evaluation settings and infinite environment variations. Each game in SmartPlay uniquely challenges a subset of 9 important capabilities of an intelligent LLM agent, including reasoning with object dependencies, planning ahead, spatial reasoning, learning from history, and understanding randomness. The distinction between the set of capabilities each game test allows us to analyze each capability separately. SmartPlay serves not only as a rigorous testing ground for evaluating the overall performance of LLM agents but also as a road-map for identifying gaps in current methodologies. We release our benchmark at github.com/LLMsmartplay/SmartPlay

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive performance on a wide variety of tasks, but they often struggle with tasks that require multi-step reasoning or goal-directed planning. To address this, we take inspiration from the human brain, in which planning is accomplished via the recurrent interaction of specialized modules in the prefrontal cortex (PFC). These modules perform functions such as conflict monitoring, state prediction, state evaluation, task decomposition, and task coordination. We find that LLMs are sometimes capable of carrying out these functions in isolation, but struggle to autonomously coordinate them in the service of a goal. Therefore, we propose a black box architecture with multiple LLM-based (GPT-4) modules. The architecture improves planning through the interaction of specialized PFC-inspired modules that break down a larger problem into multiple brief automated calls to the LLM. We evaluate the combined architecture on two challenging planning tasks -- graph traversal and Tower of Hanoi -- finding that it yields significant improvements over standard LLM methods (e.g., zero-shot prompting or in-context learning). These results demonstrate the benefit of utilizing knowledge from cognitive neuroscience to improve planning in LLMs.

We introduce a new type of programming challenge called programming puzzles, as an objective and comprehensive evaluation of program synthesis, and release an open-source dataset of Python Programming Puzzles (P3). Each puzzle is defined by a short Python program f, and the goal is to find an input which makes f return True. The puzzles are objective in that each one is specified entirely by the source code of its verifier f, so evaluating f is all that is needed to test a candidate solution. They do not require an answer key or input/output examples, nor do they depend on natural language understanding. The dataset is comprehensive in that it spans problems of a range of difficulties and domains, ranging from trivial string manipulation problems, to classic programming puzzles (e.g., Tower of Hanoi), to interview/competitive-programming problems (e.g., dynamic programming), to longstanding open problems in algorithms and mathematics (e.g., factoring). We develop baseline enumerative program synthesis, GPT-3 and Codex solvers that are capable of solving puzzles -- even without access to any reference solutions -- by learning from their own past solutions. Codex performs best, solving up to 18% of 397 test problems with a single try and 80% of the problems with 1,000 tries per problem. In a small user study, we find a positive correlation between puzzle-solving performance and coding experience, and between the puzzle difficulty for humans and AI solvers. Therefore, further improvements on P3 could have a significant impact on many program synthesis areas.