# AstroReason-Bench: Evaluating Unified Agentic Planning across Heterogeneous Space Planning Problems

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.11354 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.11354/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 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 2 of its 46 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Jan 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)
- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [ThinkGeo: Evaluating Tool-Augmented Agents for Remote Sensing Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23752/) (2025)
- [ASTREA: Introducing Agentic Intelligence for Orbital Thermal Autonomy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.13380/) (2025)

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

- [Stargazer: A Scalable Model-Fitting Benchmark Environment for AI Agents under Astrophysical Constraints](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.15664/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Recent LLM-for-Space systems address mission planning, scheduling, operations support, simulator control, and autonomy, but their evaluations use different task contracts, control settings, simulators, and success criteria. We introduce AstroAgentBench, a seven-family benchmark for executable space mission planning in the domains of scheduling, observation planning, constellation design, and relay support. For each case, an agent submits a planning artifact that is checked by an external verifier for schema, timing, geometry, resources, and mission value. Results report validity and normalized scores, with comparisons to task-specific solver references. Across five LLM agent systems and 35 held-out cases, the strongest systems approach or exceed solver-reference scores on several families, while weaker systems often fail to produce high-value valid plans and even strong systems lose quality on geometric, product-level, or design-heavy tasks. Trace analyses separate two failure points: task-contract misformulation and weak solution construction. Successful runs instead calibrate agent-written implementations against verifier feedback and adapt search to case-specific structure. Ablations show that procedure injection and memory accumulation help selectively, when they supply the missing formulation, calibration, or search support.