Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41028742›Full record

ArticleNature communications2025

A brain-inspired agentic architecture to improve planning with LLMs.

Taylor Webb, Shanka Subhra Mondal, Ida Momennejad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Taylor Webb *Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada. taylor.w.webb@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1335-3177
Shanka Subhra Mondal *Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Ida MomennejadMicrosoft Research, New York City, NY, USA. ida.momennejad@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive performance on a wide variety of tasks, but they often struggle with tasks that require multi-step reasoning or goal-directed planning. To address this, we take inspiration from the human brain, in which planning is accomplished via component processes that are predominantly associated with specific brain regions. These processes include conflict monitoring, state prediction, state evaluation, task decomposition, and task coordination. We find that LLMs are often capable of carrying out these functions in isolation, but struggle to autonomously coordinate them in the service of a goal. Therefore, we propose a modular agentic architecture - the Modular Agentic Planner (MAP) - in which planning is performed via the interaction of specialized brain-inspired LLM modules. We evaluate MAP on three challenging planning tasks - graph traversal, Tower of Hanoi, and the PlanBench benchmark - as well as an NLP task requiring multi-step reasoning (strategyQA). We find that MAP yields significant improvements over both standard LLM methods and competitive agentic baselines, can be effectively combined with smaller and more cost-efficient LLMs, and displays superior transfer across tasks. These results demonstrate the benefit of utilizing knowledge from cognitive neuroscience to improve planning in LLMs.

Indexed as

BrainLanguageHumans

Identifiers

PMID41028742
PMCPMC12485071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.