ACPBench Hard: Unrestrained Reasoning about Action, Change, and Planning
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code
Abstract (arXiv)
The ACPBench dataset provides atomic reasoning tasks required for efficient planning. The dataset is aimed at distilling the complex plan generation task into separate atomic reasoning tasks in their easiest possible form, boolean or multiple-choice questions, where the model has to choose the right answer from the provided options. While the aim of ACPBench is to test the simplest form of reasoning about action and change, when tasked with planning, a model does not typically have options to choose from and thus the reasoning required for planning dictates an open-ended, generative form for these tasks. To that end, we introduce ACPBench Hard, a generative version of ACPBench, with open-ended questions which the model needs to answer. Models that perform well on these tasks could in principle be integrated into a planner or be used directly as a policy. We discuss the complexity of these tasks as well as the complexity of validating the correctness of their answers and present validation algorithms for each task. Equipped with these validators, we test the performance of a variety of models on our tasks and find that for most of these tasks the performance of even the largest models is still subpar. Our experiments show that no model outperforms another in these tasks and with a few exceptions all tested language models score below 65%, indicating that even the current frontier language models have a long way to go before they can reliably reason about planning. In fact, even the so-called reasoning models struggle with solving these reasoning tasks. ACPBench Hard collection is available at the following link: https://ibm.github.io/ACPBench
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 10 of its 59 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Mar 2025.
Builds on
10 of 59 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
- 2024OpenAI o1 System Card21 Dec
Other references · 9
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,330
- 2024GPT-4o System Cardcited by 4,588
- 2024DeepSeek-Coder: When the Large Language Model Meets Programming -- The Rise of Code Intelligencecited by 1,181
- 2024DeepSeek-V3 Technical Reportcited by 811
- 2024AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agentscited by 339
- 2023On the Tool Manipulation Capability of Open-source Large Language Modelscited by 122
- 2024Granite Code Models: A Family of Open Foundation Models for Code Intelligencecited by 117
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 5.
8 papers.
- 2026AutoHarness: improving LLM agents by automatically synthesizing a code harnesscited by 76
- 2025CostBench: Evaluating Multi-Turn Cost-Optimal Planning and Adaptation in Dynamic Environments for LLM Tool-Use Agentscited by 33
- 2025Seemingly Simple Planning Problems are Computationally Challenging: The Countdown Gamecited by 9
- 2025How Far Are LLMs from Symbolic Planners? An NLP-Based Perspectivecited by 6
- 2026What We Talk About When We Talk About LLM Planning: Evidence for Two Distinct Planning Abilitiescited by 1
- 2026EvalResearchBench: Can AI Agents Design Their Own Evaluations?cited by 1
- 2026Planning with Transformers: Chain of Computation and Structured Context Windowscited by 0
- 2026CoEvoke: Evoking Multi-Agent Collaboration for Trajectory Collectioncited by 0
- 2026EvalResearchBench: Can AI Agents Design Their Own Evaluations?3 Oct 2026
- 2026CoEvoke: Evoking Multi-Agent Collaboration for Trajectory Collection29 Sep 2026
- 2026Planning with Transformers: Chain of Computation and Structured Context Windows20 Jul 2026
- 2026What We Talk About When We Talk About LLM Planning: Evidence for Two Distinct Planning Abilities13 Jul 2026
- 2026AutoHarness: improving LLM agents by automatically synthesizing a code harness10 Feb 2026
- 2025CostBench: Evaluating Multi-Turn Cost-Optimal Planning and Adaptation in Dynamic Environments for LLM Tool-Use Agents4 Nov 2025
- 2025Seemingly Simple Planning Problems are Computationally Challenging: The Countdown Game4 Aug 2025
- 2025How Far Are LLMs from Symbolic Planners? An NLP-Based Perspective2 Aug 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024ACPBench: Reasoning about Action, Change, and Planning
- 2022PlanBench: An Extensible Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models on Planning and Reasoning about Change
- 2026PlanningBench: Generating Scalable and Verifiable Planning Data for Evaluating and Training Large Language Models
- 2025PlanGEN: A Multi-Agent Framework for Generating Planning and Reasoning Trajectories for Complex Problem Solving
- 2024PARADISE: Evaluating Implicit Planning Skills of Language Models with Procedural Warnings and Tips Dataset
- 2025CRISP: Complex Reasoning with Interpretable Step-based Plans
- 2023Explicit Planning Helps Language Models in Logical Reasoning
- 2026Reasoning Core: A Scalable Procedural Data Generation Suite for Symbolic Pre-training and Post-Training