# Can LLM-Reasoning Models Replace Classical Planning? A Benchmark Study

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.23589 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.23589/

## Key facts

- Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Spatial and embodied reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 12 of its 39 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 31 Jul 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Spatial and embodied reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/spatial-and-embodied-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 12 of 12)

- [Do As I Can, Not As I Say: Grounding Language in Robotic Affordances](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.01691/) (2022)
- [PaLM-E: An Embodied Multimodal Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.03378/) (2023)
- [LLM+P: Empowering Large Language Models with Optimal Planning Proficiency](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.11477/) (2023)
- [NATURAL PLAN: Benchmarking LLMs on Natural Language Planning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04520/) (2024)
- [LLMs Still Can't Plan; Can LRMs? A Preliminary Evaluation of OpenAI's o1 on PlanBench](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.13373/) (2024)
- [AgentGen: Enhancing Planning Abilities for Large Language Model based Agent via Environment and Task Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.00764/) (2024)
- [Planetarium: A Rigorous Benchmark for Translating Text to Structured Planning Languages](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.03321/) (2024)
- [Automating the Generation of Prompts for LLM-based Action Choice in PDDL Planning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09830/) (2023)
- [NL2Plan: Robust LLM-Driven Planning from Minimal Text Descriptions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.04215/) (2024)
- [Can We Rely on LLM Agents to Draft Long-Horizon Plans? Let's Take TravelPlanner as an Example](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.06318/) (2024)
- [Fast and Accurate Task Planning using Neuro-Symbolic Language Models and Multi-level Goal Decomposition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.19250/) (2024)
- [Open Grounded Planning: Challenges and Benchmark Construction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.02903/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [Agentic Artificial Intelligence (AI): Architectures, Taxonomies, and Evaluation of Large Language Model Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.12560/) (2026)
- [Scaling Small Agents Through Strategy Auctions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.02751/) (2026)
- [On the Generalization Gap in LLM Planning: Tests and Verifier-Reward RL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.14456/) (2026)
- [Process Reward Models Meet Planning: Generating Precise and Scalable Datasets for Step-Level Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.17957/) (2026)
- [Vibe AIGC: A New Paradigm for Content Generation via Agentic Orchestration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.04575/) (2026)
- [Tool-Aware Planning in Contact Center AI: Evaluating LLMs through Lineage-Guided Query Decomposition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.14955/) (2026)
- [HINT-Plan: Human Intention-Aware Robot Task Planning in Context-Rich Environments using Vision Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.17771/) (2026)
- [Which LLM is Best for Translating Natural Language Goals to PDDL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.18731/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Recent advancements in Large Language Models have sparked interest in their potential for robotic task planning. While these models demonstrate strong generative capabilities, their effectiveness in producing structured and executable plans remains uncertain. This paper presents a systematic evaluation of a broad spectrum of current state of the art language models, each directly prompted using Planning Domain Definition Language domain and problem files, and compares their planning performance with the Fast Downward planner across a variety of benchmarks. In addition to measuring success rates, we assess how faithfully the generated plans translate into sequences of actions that can actually be executed, identifying both strengths and limitations of using these models in this setting. Our findings show that while the models perform well on simpler planning tasks, they continue to struggle with more complex scenarios that require precise resource management, consistent state tracking, and strict constraint compliance. These results underscore fundamental challenges in applying language models to robotic planning in real world environments. By outlining the gaps that emerge during execution, we aim to guide future research toward combined approaches that integrate language models with classical planners in order to enhance the reliability and scalability of planning in autonomous robotics.