# Chain of Thoughtlessness? An Analysis of CoT in Planning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04776 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.04776/

## Key facts

- Cited by 103 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 42 of its 57 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 May 2024.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/prompting-and-chain-of-thought-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 42)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.12712/) (2023)
- [Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.04615/) (2022)
- [CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.00937/) (2018)
- [Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Them](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.09261/) (2022)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [Least-to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.10625/) (2022)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [Show Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.00114/) (2021)
- [CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11738/) (2023)
- [Did Aristotle Use a Laptop? A Question Answering Benchmark with Implicit Reasoning Strategies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.02235/) (2021)
- [Automatic Chain of Thought Prompting in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03493/) (2022)
- [Language Models are Multilingual Chain-of-Thought Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03057/) (2022)
- [Faith and Fate: Limits of Transformers on Compositionality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18654/) (2023)
- [PlanBench: An Extensible Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models on Planning and Reasoning about Change](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.10498/) (2022)
- [Language Models Are Greedy Reasoners: A Systematic Formal Analysis of Chain-of-Thought](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.01240/) (2022)
- [A Diverse Corpus for Evaluating and Developing English Math Word Problem Solvers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.15772/) (2021)
- [On the Planning Abilities of Large Language Models : A Critical Investigation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.15771/) (2023)
- [Towards Revealing the Mystery behind Chain of Thought: A Theoretical Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.15408/) (2023)
- [Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.13379/) (2023)
- [Reasoning with Language Model Prompting: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09597/) (2022)
- [Exploring Length Generalization in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.04901/) (2022)
- [On the Self-Verification Limitations of Large Language Models on Reasoning and Planning Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.08115/) (2024)
- [Faithful Reasoning Using Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.14271/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 30 of 103)

- [To CoT or not to CoT? Chain-of-thought helps mainly on math and symbolic reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12183/) (2024)
- [TRAIL: Trace Reasoning and Agentic Issue Localization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.08638/) (2025)
- [Q*: Improving Multi-step Reasoning for LLMs with Deliberative Planning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.14283/) (2024)
- [Audio-Reasoner: Improving Reasoning Capability in Large Audio Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.02318/) (2025)
- [LLMs Still Can't Plan; Can LRMs? A Preliminary Evaluation of OpenAI's o1 on PlanBench](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.13373/) (2024)
- [Curriculum Reinforcement Learning from Easy to Hard Tasks Improves LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.06632/) (2025)
- [The Illusion of Diminishing Returns: Measuring Long Horizon Execution in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.09677/) (2025)
- [SagaLLM: Context Management, Validation, and Transaction Guarantees for Multi-Agent LLM Planning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.11951/) (2025)
- [Sample, Scrutinize and Scale: Effective Inference-Time Search by Scaling Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01839/) (2025)
- [Is Chain-of-Thought Reasoning of LLMs a Mirage? A Data Distribution Lens](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.01191/) (2025)
- [A Survey of Test-Time Compute: From Intuitive Inference to Deliberate Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.02497/) (2025)
- [Large Language Models for Planning: A Comprehensive and Systematic Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.19683/) (2025)
- [LLMs as Planning Formalizers: A Survey for Leveraging Large Language Models to Construct Automated Planning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18971/) (2025)
- [Robust Planning with LLM-Modulo Framework: Case Study in Travel Planning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.20625/) (2024)
- [LLaMAR: Long-Horizon Planning for Multi-Agent Robots in Partially Observable Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.10031/) (2024)
- [Limitations of Large Language Models in Clinical Problem-Solving Arising from Inflexible Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.04381/) (2025)
- [The Curse of CoT: On the Limitations of Chain-of-Thought in In-Context Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.05081/) (2025)
- [Entropy-based Exploration Conduction for Multi-step Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.15848/) (2025)
- [Deciphering the Factors Influencing the Efficacy of Chain-of-Thought: Probability, Memorization, and Noisy Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.01687/) (2024)
- [FaithCoT-Bench: Benchmarking Instance-Level Faithfulness of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.04040/) (2025)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Obscures Hallucination Cues in Large Language Models: An Empirical Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.17088/) (2025)
- [Learning When to Plan: Efficiently Allocating Test-Time Compute for LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.03581/) (2025)
- [Exploring and Benchmarking the Planning Capabilities of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.13094/) (2024)
- [On the Limit of Language Models as Planning Formalizers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.09879/) (2024)
- [Classical Planning with LLM-Generated Heuristics: Challenging the State of the Art with Python Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18809/) (2025)
- [Planning in Strawberry Fields: Evaluating and Improving the Planning and Scheduling Capabilities of LRM o1](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02162/) (2024)
- [A Survey on Large Language Models for Automated Planning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.12435/) (2025)
- [FIRE-Bench: Evaluating AI Agents on the Rediscovery of Scientific Insights](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.02905/) (2026)
- [A Hopfieldian View-based Interpretation for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12255/) (2024)
- [Teaching LLMs to Plan: Logical Chain-of-Thought Instruction Tuning for Symbolic Planning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.13351/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language model (LLM) performance on reasoning problems typically does not generalize out of distribution. Previous work has claimed that this can be mitigated with chain of thought prompting-a method of demonstrating solution procedures-with the intuition that it is possible to in-context teach an LLM an algorithm for solving the problem. This paper presents a case study of chain of thought on problems from Blocksworld, a classical planning domain, and examines the performance of two state-of-the-art LLMs across two axes: generality of examples given in prompt, and complexity of problems queried with each prompt. While our problems are very simple, we only find meaningful performance improvements from chain of thought prompts when those prompts are exceedingly specific to their problem class, and that those improvements quickly deteriorate as the size n of the query-specified stack grows past the size of stacks shown in the examples. We also create scalable variants of three domains commonly studied in previous CoT papers and demonstrate the existence of similar failure modes. Our results hint that, contrary to previous claims in the literature, CoT's performance improvements do not stem from the model learning general algorithmic procedures via demonstrations but depend on carefully engineering highly problem specific prompts. This spotlights drawbacks of chain of thought, especially the sharp tradeoff between possible performance gains and the amount of human labor necessary to generate examples with correct reasoning traces.