# Knowledge Model Prompting Increases LLM Performance on Planning Tasks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.03900 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.03900/

## 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 17 of its 42 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Feb 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, 17 of 17)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [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)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03172/) (2023)
- [A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering in Large Language Models: Techniques and Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.07927/) (2024)
- [PlanBench: An Extensible Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models on Planning and Reasoning about Change](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.10498/) (2022)
- [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)
- [A Survey on Model Compression for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07633/) (2023)
- [Chain of Thoughtlessness? An Analysis of CoT in Planning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.04776/) (2024)
- [Language models align with human judgments on key grammatical constructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01676/) (2024)
- [To Code, or Not To Code? Exploring Impact of Code in Pre-training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.10914/) (2024)
- [Steering Large Language Models between Code Execution and Textual Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.03524/) (2024)
- [Common Corpus: The Largest Collection of Ethical Data for LLM Pre-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.01732/) (2025)
- [Humans decompose tasks by trading off utility and computational cost](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.03890/) (2022)
- [Combining Cognitive and Generative AI for Self-explanation in Interactive AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.18335/) (2024)

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

- [Reinforcing privacy reasoning in LLMs via normative simulacra from fiction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.20904/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLM) can struggle with reasoning ability and planning tasks. Many prompting techniques have been developed to assist with LLM reasoning, notably Chain-of-Thought (CoT); however, these techniques, too, have come under scrutiny as LLMs' ability to reason at all has come into question. Borrowing from the domain of cognitive and educational science, this paper investigates whether the Task-Method-Knowledge (TMK) framework can improve LLM reasoning capabilities beyond its previously demonstrated success in educational applications. The TMK framework's unique ability to capture causal, teleological, and hierarchical reasoning structures, combined with its explicit task decomposition mechanisms, makes it particularly well-suited for addressing language model reasoning deficiencies, and unlike other hierarchical frameworks such as HTN and BDI, TMK provides explicit representations of not just what to do and how to do it, but also why actions are taken. The study evaluates TMK by experimenting on the PlanBench benchmark, focusing on the Blocksworld domain to test for reasoning and planning capabilities, examining whether TMK-structured prompting can help language models better decompose complex planning problems into manageable sub-tasks. Results also highlight significant performance inversion in reasoning models. TMK prompting enables the reasoning model to achieve up to an accuracy of 97.3% on opaque, symbolic tasks (Random versions of Blocksworld in PlanBench) where it previously failed (31.5%), suggesting the potential to bridge the gap between semantic approximation and symbolic manipulation. Our findings suggest that TMK functions not merely as context, but also as a mechanism that steers reasoning models away from their default linguistic modes to engage formal, code-execution pathways in the context of the experiments.