Can Large Language Models be Good Path Planners? A Benchmark and Investigation on Spatial-temporal Reasoning

arXiv · PDF · Open in the Atlas

Code that ran

We lifted 28 functions out of this paper's own repositories and ran 28 of them in a sandbox. "Ran" means the function executed on a synthesized input and returned a value. It is not a reproduction of the paper's results.

Repositories linked to this paper

• mohamedaghzal/llms-as-path-planners — marked official in Papers with Code; named in the paper

Some links come from the archived Papers with Code dataset (CC BY-SA 4.0): attribution and licence.

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success across a wide spectrum of tasks; however, they still face limitations in scenarios that demand long-term planning and spatial reasoning. To facilitate this line of research, in this work, we propose a new benchmark, termed $\textbf{P}$ath $\textbf{P}$lanning from $\textbf{N}$atural $\textbf{L}$anguage ($\textbf{PPNL}$). Our benchmark evaluates LLMs' spatial-temporal reasoning by formulating ''path planning'' tasks that require an LLM to navigate to target locations while avoiding obstacles and adhering to constraints. Leveraging this benchmark, we systematically investigate LLMs including GPT-4 via different few-shot prompting methodologies as well as BART and T5 of various sizes via fine-tuning. Our experimental results show the promise of few-shot GPT-4 in spatial reasoning, when it is prompted to reason and act interleavedly, although it still fails to perform long-term temporal reasoning. In contrast, while fine-tuned LLMs achieved impressive results on in-distribution reasoning tasks, they struggled to generalize to larger environments or environments with more obstacles.

For agents

The same record, over MCP at https://syntology.ai/mcp:

get_harvested_code_for_paper("2310.03249")
get_code_for_paper("2310.03249")
have("2310.03249")

Connect an agent — have() is free.