# MA-Bench: Measuring Operational Planning in Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.19138 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.19138/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 47 of its 61 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 47)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (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)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13854/) (2023)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03688/) (2023)
- [OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.07972/) (2024)
- [Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04132/) (2024)
- [GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12983/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04475/) (2024)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [BrowseComp: A Simple Yet Challenging Benchmark for Browsing Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.12516/) (2025)
- [Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08491/) (2023)
- [RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.13787/) (2024)
- [MLE-bench: Evaluating Machine Learning Agents on Machine Learning Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.07095/) (2024)
- [HealthBench: Evaluating Large Language Models Towards Improved Human Health](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.08775/) (2025)
- [TravelPlanner: A Benchmark for Real-World Planning with Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01622/) (2024)
- [AmbigQA: Answering Ambiguous Open-domain Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.10645/) (2020)
- [PlanBench: An Extensible Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models on Planning and Reasoning about Change](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.10498/) (2022)
- [Rubrics as Rewards: Reinforcement Learning Beyond Verifiable Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.17746/) (2025)
- [NLP Evaluation in trouble: On the Need to Measure LLM Data Contamination for each Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.18018/) (2023)
- [PaperBench: Evaluating AI's Ability to Replicate AI Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.01848/) (2025)
- [GDPval: Evaluating AI Model Performance on Real-World Economically Valuable Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.04374/) (2025)
- [War and Peace (WarAgent): Large Language Model-based Multi-Agent Simulation of World Wars](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17227/) (2023)
- [NATURAL PLAN: Benchmarking LLMs on Natural Language Planning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04520/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

How well can a language model turn a large, incomplete and partly contradictory body of documents into a plan when no single correct answer exists? We introduce Mission Analysis (MA)-Bench, built on mission analysis, the first step of military operational planning, in which a staff reads the full situation and states the problem before anyone proposes a solution. Its 10 expert-built scenarios pair synthetic packets of ten to twelve documents with 1,257 expert-written pass/fail requirements, each containing information on their source, question type, and importance level. A reasoning-model judge grades each brief against the requirements without seeing the documents; it grades like a fifth credentialed planner, leaving a four-planner panel's agreement unchanged (Fleiss kappa 0.42 to 0.41), and a judge from a second provider reproduces the model ranking (Spearman 0.94). Across twenty frontier and open-weights models the best gets 62% of the rubric items right. Models are strongest on facts stated in the documents (58%) and weakest on judgments that must be inferred (33%), and six failures in ten are omissions rather than errors. MA-Bench grades the determinations, not the prose. We release the packets, rubrics, prompts, scorer and every graded brief with item-level verdicts.