# On the Limits of Innate Planning in Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.21591 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.21591/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 24 of its 34 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Nov 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 24 of 24)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [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)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.06261/) (2025)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01574/) (2024)
- [Program of Thoughts Prompting: Disentangling Computation from Reasoning for Numerical Reasoning Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.12588/) (2022)
- [Humanity's Last Exam](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.14249/) (2025)
- [The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.06941/) (2025)
- [MathArena: Evaluating LLMs on Uncontaminated Math Competitions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23281/) (2025)
- [Towards Understanding Chain-of-Thought Prompting: An Empirical Study of What Matters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10001/) (2022)
- [Benchmark Data Contamination of Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04244/) (2024)
- [BIG-Bench Extra Hard](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.19187/) (2025)
- [Forest-of-Thought: Scaling Test-Time Compute for Enhancing LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.09078/) (2024)
- [Algorithm of Thoughts: Enhancing Exploration of Ideas in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.10379/) (2023)
- [On the Planning Abilities of Large Language Models (A Critical Investigation with a Proposed Benchmark)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.06706/) (2023)
- [Alice in Wonderland: Simple Tasks Showing Complete Reasoning Breakdown in State-Of-the-Art Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.02061/) (2024)
- [Towards Better Chain-of-Thought Prompting Strategies: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.04959/) (2023)
- [The SWE-Bench Illusion: When State-of-the-Art LLMs Remember Instead of Reason](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.12286/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [SokoBench: Evaluating Long-Horizon Planning and Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.20856/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) achieve impressive results on many benchmarks, yet their capacity for planning and stateful reasoning remains unclear. We study these abilities directly, without code execution or other tools, using the 8-puzzle: a classic task that requires state tracking and goal-directed planning while allowing precise, step-by-step evaluation. Four models are tested under common prompting conditions (Zero-Shot, Chain-of-Thought, Algorithm-of-Thought) and with tiered corrective feedback. Feedback improves success rates for some model-prompt combinations, but many successful runs are long, computationally expensive, and indirect. We then examine the models with an external move validator that provides only valid moves. Despite this level of assistance, none of the models solve any puzzles in this setting. Qualitative analysis reveals two dominant deficits across all models: (1) brittle internal state representations, leading to frequent invalid moves, and (2) weak heuristic planning, with models entering loops or selecting actions that do not reduce the distance to the goal state. These findings indicate that, in the absence of external tools such as code interpreters, current LLMs have substantial limitations in planning and that further progress may require mechanisms for maintaining explicit state and performing structured search.