ALPINE: Unveiling the Planning Capability of Autoregressive Learning in Language Models

Planning is a crucial element of both human intelligence and contemporary large language models (LLMs). In this paper, we initiate a theoretical investigation into the emergence of planning capabilities in Transformer-based LLMs via their next-word prediction mechanisms. We model planning as a network path-finding task, where the objective is to generate a valid path from a specified source node to a designated target node. Our mathematical characterization shows that Transformer architectures can execute path-finding by embedding the adjacency and reachability matrices within their weights. Furthermore, our theoretical analysis of gradient-based learning dynamics reveals that LLMs can learn both the adjacency and a limited form of the reachability matrices. These theoretical insights are then validated through experiments, which demonstrate that Transformer architectures indeed learn the adjacency and an incomplete reachability matrices, consistent with our theoretical predictions. When applying our methodology to the real-world planning benchmark Blocksworld, our observations remain consistent. Additionally, our analyses uncover a fundamental limitation of current Transformer architectures in path-finding: these architectures cannot identify reachability relationships through transitivity, which leads to failures in generating paths when concatenation is required. These findings provide new insights into how the internal mechanisms of autoregressive learning facilitate intelligent planning and deepen our understanding of how future LLMs might achieve more advanced and general planning-and-reasoning capabilities across diverse applications.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer wPpp6/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-12

Summary

This paper addresses the question of whether or not a transformer-based language model can learn to plan based on next-token prediction. The authors analyse the ability of a transformer-based language model to learn in an abstracted path planning domain, and show that the model can some of the underlying structure of planning problems but has real difficulty in learning to generalise from the training data to be able to solve novel planning problems using relations such as transitivity.

Strengths

The overall idea of this paper is pretty strong. - The specific problem the authors address is important and relevant, especially determining if a transformer can learn to solve novel planning problems by inferring unobserved relations. - The formulation of the analysis is reasonably strong. The combination of Theorem 2 and Theorem 3 are a statement about the expressive capacity of the model, but the limitations on the learning process. - The experimental results do a reasonable job of supporting the theoretical analysis and claims of the paper.

Weaknesses

There are unfortunately two fairly substantial weaknesses in this paper. - Firstly, while the paper demonstrates that the specific network architecture chosen cannot deduce the existence of reachability relations that are not observed in the training data, the paper does not adequately describe why there might be any reason to think this. The result that reachability cannot be inferred without observing it is not really surprising, and the brief motivation in the third paragraph of the introduction (describing learned planning) is not really adequate. At the same time, it is a little surprising that the learner does not generalise at all to *similar* reachable concepts. This weakness could perhaps be addressed in a revised version of the paper through a clearer introduction, and the introduction itself is a little hard to follow. I did not entirely understand where the paper was headed until I got to the end of the paper and read "the Transformer can only learn observed reachability, and will miss those unobserved reachability deduced from the transitivity of the reachability relation." (To be fair, this idea is also present in the abstract, but not strongly present in the introduction.) A clearer motivation for the investigation and why it is reasonable to be unsure about what the Transformer is learning would be extremely helpful. - The second weakness is that it is not clear the extent to which the lack of inference of reachability is a problem with the specific network architecture. I was surprised that the feed forward layer is a multi-layer perceptron, rather than a graph neural network, as described by Khan et al (2020). Gama et al (2019) showed that GNNs are invariant to graph permutations which make them particularly useful in certain kinds of planning problems. The real problem is that the theoretical result is a positive result about what *is* learnable, and is supported by the experiments, but the primary conclusion of the paper is a negative result. The paper does not have a corresponding theoretical result to justify the negative result, and it is hard not to wonder if the experimental results are an accident of the specific network and training process. The fact that the "Transformer model has a fundamental difficulty in generating paths for high-degree source-target pairs" may also be an accident of the network architecture, although a GNN formulation would (most likely) need to know ahead of time the degree of the node. - The experimental results are reasonable, but the specific planning domains are somewhat ad hoc and not very general. I am happy to see assessment across a range of domain sizes, but the domains are still quite limited. Future work (c) is crucial for these results to become more broadly relevant.

Questions

- Why exactly is it not clear whether or not a Transformer can learn unobserved reachability? Are there any computational structures that suggest that this might be possible, or any domains with a similar kind of inference process where transitivity *was* learned and used? - What possibility is there for a negative theoretical result, that a Transformer of this kind could *never* learn to use transitivity and therefore infer reachability? - In Figure 2, why is $R^{obs}(D_3)$ not identical to $R^{true}$, since $D_3$ is all possible paths?

Rating

6

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

2

Limitations

The authors did not provide a limitations section -- the technical limitations of the work have been addressed in the weakness section.

Reviewer wPpp2024-08-09

I thank the authors for their clear rebuttal. - Regarding the point about whether your understanding aligns with my review, I think we are on the same page about why generalisation might not happen. - Regarding the point about learning unobserved reachability, your answer on the difference between next-token-prediction and predicting the entire path is clear and helpful, but I still wish there had been some evidence included in the paper that unobserved reachability might be learnable at all in this way. It's very good to have a negative result, but what led you to asking the question in the first place? I am still moderately positively disposed towards this paper, and don't really have any further questions.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-10

We greatly appreciate your insightful suggestions and comments, which have significantly contributed to the refinement of our paper. We are also thankful for your acknowledgment of our rebuttal efforts. Due to rebuttal space limitations, we cannot explain the rationale for investigating unobserved reachabilities well, which may cause confusion. **Definition of Observed Reachability:** We first revisit the concept of observed reachability, as defined between lines 140 and 154 in our paper. In the context of our experiments, the training dataset is denoted as $\mathcal{D}$. The format for input sequences is 's t s a b c t', where 's' represents the source node, 't' is the target node, and the sequence 's a b c t' constitutes a valid path from 's' to 't'. We define $R^{obs}(t,k)$ as the **observed reachability** from node 'k' to 't', which is determined by the following condition: $R^{obs}(t,k) = 1,\text{if } \exists u \in \mathcal{D}, n \in [4,N] \text{ s.t. } u_2 = t, u_n = k$, otherwise $R^{obs}(t,k) = 0$. If node 't' can be reached from 's' while $R^{obs}(t,k)=0$, this is considered an **unobserved reachability**. **Example:** Consider a training dataset containing two sequences: 'a b a b' and 'b d b c d'. The observed reachabilities are (d,c), (b,b), and (d,d). Conversely, the unobserved reachabilities include reachability through transitivity (i.e., (c,a) and (d,a)) and other reachability that does not satisfy the definition (i.e., (b,a), (d,b), (c,c) and (c,b)). For humans, deducing unobserved reachabilities from the given paths is relatively straightforward. **Rationale for Investigating Unobserved Reachabilities:** The motivation for exploring unobserved reachabilities is twofold. Firstly, Algorithm 1 indicates that complete knowledge of all reachabilities is essential for flawlessly completing the path-finding task. Observing the high accuracy of Transformers in path finding, as depicted in Figure 3, leads us to hypothesize that they might infer the true reachabilities. Secondly, Theorem 2 presents a specific configuration of a Transformer's weights that encodes all reachabilities and is capable of finding a path with a high probability. This raises the question: can such weights be derived from the next token prediction loss, a common loss function used by current LLMs? **Consequences of Inability to Learn Unobserved Reachabilities:** The findings presented in Theorem 3 are negative, implying that Transformers with next token prediction loss are unable to infer unobserved reachability through transitivity. Besides the failure of finding a path via transitivity, it has practical implications for compositional reasoning in LLMs. Even if an LLM is aware of the reasoning chains $a\rightarrow b$ and $b\rightarrow c \rightarrow d$, it cannot deduce the extended chain $a \rightarrow b \rightarrow c\rightarrow d$ using transitivity. This limitation applies to current LLMs, including GPT-4, as referenced in [1,2]. [1] Wang B, Yue X, Su Y, et al. Grokked Transformers are Implicit Reasoners: A Mechanistic Journey to the Edge of Generalization[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15071, 2024. [2] Yang S, Gribovskaya E, Kassner N, et al. Do Large Language Models Latently Perform Multi-Hop Reasoning?[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16837, 2024.

Reviewer znJo4/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-12

Summary

The paper investigates planning capabilities in Transformer-based language models by framing planning as a network path-finding task. It reveals that while Transformers can successfully embed adjacency and reachability matrices to perform path-finding, they struggle with transitivity in reachability, limiting their effectiveness in more complex planning scenarios. These theoretical insights are substantiated with experimental validations using both synthetic and real-world datasets, including the Blocksworld benchmark.

Strengths

- The paper addresses a highly significant problem, which is crucial for advancing the field. - The experimental setup proposed is straightforward yet appears effective, which is commendable. - The authors have made efforts to approach the topic from both theoretical and empirical perspectives, enriching the study.

Weaknesses

- The paper suffers from a lack of logical connections among the introduction, theory, and experiments. For instance, the broad question posed, "Why does next-word prediction generate intelligence?" lacks a clear alignment with specific aspects of their work. It is unclear which parts of their work address this question and to what extent. - The clarity of writing needs improvement. For example, the mention of "Project ALPINE" in the introduction is vague, as it does not specify what the project encompasses.

Questions

- Could you clarify whether your project encompasses theory, algorithms, or insights? - Additionally, it would be beneficial to investigate whether the claims presented in your paper hold up under more realistic setup.

Rating

4

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

2

Contribution

3

Limitations

- The paper requires a rewrite to better articulate the contributions and clarify the core arguments. - Further investigation is necessary to assess whether the claims presented hold up under more realistic conditions.

Reviewer T9s77/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-13

Summary

This paper studies the planning capabilities of language models and provides a theoretical foundation for understanding it. The paper investigates the problem by abstracting it as a path-finding problem, showing both theoretically and empirically that transformers can embed adjacency and reachability matrices within their weights. It also highlights their limitations in handling complex planning scenarios. Main contributions: - This paper initiates the theoretical study of planning in autoregressive language models by abstracting it as a path-finding problem. - This paper shows that the transformer has the expressiveness to perform path-finding tasks, and gradient descent on cross-entropy loss cause the Transformer to learn necessary but incomplete graph information for the path-finding task. - This paper unveils both analytically and empirically that autoregressive training of language models has limitations in the path-finding task. - The paper analyzes the learning dynamics of a simplified Transformer architecture. It highlights the limitation of transformers to identify reachability relationships through transitivity. - The theoretical insights are supported by experiments on synthetic path-finding and a real-world planning task (Blocksworld). The findings contribute to the broader effort of explaining the power and limitations of large language models.

Strengths

Originality: The approach to studying planning capabilities through path-finding in LLMs is novel and insightful. The theoretical aspects are very interesting and inspiring. Quality: The theoretical studies are well-supported by empirical evidence from synthetic and real-world datasets . Clarity: The paper is well organized, with clear definitions, methodologies, and analysis of results. Significance: Understand from a theoretical perspective and conduct empirical studies may help advance its capability in planning.

Weaknesses

- Although the experiments are thorough. They are limited to specific datasets (synthetic and Blocksworld). The paper can benefit from broader validation across diverse planning datasets. - In my opinion, the practical implications of the theoretical findings are not fully explored. How to leverage the studies still requires further thinking for readers. Further elaboration could strengthen the paper.

Questions

- How do you envision the practical applications of your findings influencing the development of future LLMs, particularly in planning? - Very interesting results, do you have similar studies for the other benchmark logistics in Planbench, maybe it also worth conducting this study on neutral plan benchmark. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04520 (note: not required for this paper, just a suggestion)

Rating

7

Confidence

4

Soundness

4

Presentation

4

Contribution

3

Limitations

The authors addressed the limitations in the paper.

Reviewer znJo2024-08-12

Thanks for your comments. Some of my concerns have been addressed, but I still have some concerns about the paper's writing and the experimental setup, so I keep my score. However, I'm open to the opinions of the other reviewers and AC, and I will respect their final decision.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-13

We would like to extend our heartfelt thanks for the valuable time and effort you have invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful feedback has significantly contributed to enhancing the manuscript's clarity. We are dedicated to meticulously revising the manuscript in line with your comments. Could you please provide additional details regarding your further concerns about the paper's writing style and experimental setup? We welcome any further comments or suggestions you may have that could help improve our paper.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC