ActionReasoningBench: Reasoning about Actions with and without Ramification Constraints
Divij Handa, Pavel Dolin, Shrinidhi Kumbhar, Tran Cao Son, Chitta Baral
Abstract
Reasoning about Actions and Change (RAC) has historically played a pivotal role in solving foundational AI problems, such as the frame problem. It has driven advancements in AI fields, such as non-monotonic and commonsense reasoning. RAC remains crucial for AI systems that operate in dynamic environments, engage in interactive scenarios, or rely on commonsense reasoning. Despite substantial advances made by Large Language Models (LLMs) in various AI domains, their performance in RAC remains underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce a new diagnostic benchmark, ACTIONREASONINGBENCH, which encompasses 8 domains and includes questions for up to 19 action sequences. This benchmark rigorously evaluates LLMs across six key RAC dimensions: Fluent Tracking, State Tracking, Action Executability, Effects of Actions, Numerical RAC, and Composite Questions. LLMs demonstrate average accuracy rates of 73.55%, 65.63%, 58.73%, and 62.38% on the former four dimensions, which are frequently discussed in RAC literature. However, the performance on the latter two dimensions, which introduce complex and novel reasoning questions, the average performance of LLMs is lowered to 33.16% and 51.19%, respectively, reflecting a 17.9% performance decline. We also introduce new ramification constraints to capture the indirect effects of actions, providing deeper insights into RAC challenges. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs, including both opensource and commercial models, reveals challenges across all RAC dimensions, particularly in handling ramifications, with GPT-4o failing to solve any question and o1-preview achieving a score of only 18.4%.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext e377614e-12a3-4221-868e-6aeefc0668fbCited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on12
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Large Language Models are Zero-Shot ReasonersTakeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 8,168 citations
- TravelPlanner: A Benchmark for Real-World Planning with Language AgentsJian Xie, Kai Zhang, Jiangjie Chen, Tinghui Zhu et al.ICML 2024 · 376 citations
- UNICORN on RAINBOW: A Universal Commonsense Reasoning Model on a New Multitask BenchmarkNicholas Lourie, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, Yejin ChoiAAAI 2021 · 149 citations
- Found in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts Better via Plug-and-Play Positional EncodingZhenyu Zhang, Runjin Chen, Shiwei Liu, Zhewei Yao et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 99 citations
Related papers
- Exploring the Capacity of Pretrained Language Models for Reasoning about Actions and ChangeWeinan He, Canming Huang, Zhanhao Xiao, Yongmei LiuACL 2023
- ACPBench: Reasoning About Action, Change, and PlanningHarsha Kokel, Michael Katz, Kavitha Srinivas, Shirin SohrabiAAAI 2025 · 35 citations
- UGMathBench: A Diverse and Dynamic Benchmark for Undergraduate-Level Mathematical Reasoning with Large Language ModelsXin Xu, Jiaxin Zhang, Tianhao Chen, Zitong Chao et al.ICLR 2025
- seqBench: A Tunable Benchmark to Quantify Sequential Reasoning Limits of LLMsMohammad Ramezanali, Mo Vazifeh, Paolo SantiEMNLP 2025
- AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as AgentsXiao Liu, Hao Yu, Hanchen Zhang, Yifan Xu et al.ICLR 2024 · 748 citations
