# Localizing and Correcting Errors for LLM-based Planners

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.00276 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.00276/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 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 25 of its 90 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Jan 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 25 of 25)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [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)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.12837/) (2022)
- [What Makes Good In-Context Examples for GPT-3?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.06804/) (2021)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Program of Thoughts Prompting: Disentangling Computation from Reasoning for Numerical Reasoning Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.12588/) (2022)
- [Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.14275/) (2022)
- [ExpeL: LLM Agents Are Experiential Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.10144/) (2023)
- [Reasoning with Language Model is Planning with World Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14992/) (2023)
- [DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03714/) (2023)
- [On the Planning Abilities of Large Language Models : A Critical Investigation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.15771/) (2023)
- [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)
- [On the Self-Verification Limitations of Large Language Models on Reasoning and Planning Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.08115/) (2024)
- [Chain of Code: Reasoning with a Language Model-Augmented Code Emulator](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.04474/) (2023)
- [Chain of Thoughtlessness? An Analysis of CoT in Planning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.04776/) (2024)
- [Beyond A*: Better Planning with Transformers via Search Dynamics Bootstrapping](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14083/) (2024)
- [In-Context Principle Learning from Mistakes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.05403/) (2024)
- [SPaRC: A Spatial Pathfinding Reasoning Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.16686/) (2025)
- [Watch Your Steps: Observable and Modular Chains of Thought](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.15359/) (2024)
- [Semi-structured LLM Reasoners Can Be Rigorously Audited](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.24217/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [AdaPlanBench: Evaluating Adaptive Planning in Large Language Model Agents under World and User Constraints](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.05622/) (2026)
- [PIVOT: Bridging Planning and Execution in LLM Agents via Trajectory Refinement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.11225/) (2026)
- [Plan-and-Patch: Diffusion Language Models for Agentic Planning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.10786/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong reasoning capabilities on math and coding, but frequently fail on symbolic classical planning tasks. Our studies, as well as prior work, show that LLM-generated plans routinely violate domain constraints given in their instructions (e.g., walking through walls). To address this failure, we propose iteratively augmenting instructions with Localized In-Context Learning (L-ICL) demonstrations: targeted corrections for specific failing steps. Specifically, L-ICL identifies the first constraint violation in a trace and injects a minimal input-output example giving the correct behavior for the failing step. Our proposed technique of L-ICL is much effective than explicit instructions or traditional ICL, which adds complete problem-solving trajectories, and many other baselines. For example, on an 8x8 gridworld, L-ICL produces valid plans 89% of the time with only 60 training examples, compared to 59% for the best baseline, an increase of 30%. L-ICL also shows dramatic improvements in other domains (gridworld navigation, mazes, Sokoban, and BlocksWorld), and on several LLM architectures.