Can AI Reason Like an Urban Planner? Benchmarking Large Language Models Against Professional Judgment

When LLMs exhibit uneven performance across planning tasks, these gaps are often attributed to task difficulty. We argue that this explanation is incomplete, as task-level variation may reflect distinct latent planning competencies rather than differences along a single ability spectrum. We study this question on ACPBench-Hard by evaluating multiple LLM families under varying test-time reasoning budgets and applying a multidimensional item response theory model to uncover the latent competency structure underlying LLM planning. The analysis reveals two principal dimensions that shape planning performance: operational reasoning, the ability to evaluate local action applicability and immediate state transitions, and structural enumeration, the ability to reason about goal reachability and landmark structure. Operational reasoning improving under model scaling and longer reasoning traces, while structural enumeration remains comparatively insensitive. Our findings motivate competency-level evaluation of LLM planning, shifting the focus from whether models improve overall to which planning competencies improve, under what conditions, and why.

Spatial planning maps are central to territorial governance, translating planning objectives, regulations, and spatial strategies into visual forms for decision-making, public communication, and institutional coordination. Their interpretation, however, requires fine-grained visual perception, spatial reasoning, and policy-informed professional judgment, creating major challenges for both human learners and AI systems. With the rapid progress of Vision-Language Models (VLMs), their use in urban planning analysis is gaining attention, yet existing multimodal benchmarks mainly target general visual understanding and overlook the domain-specific cognitive processes of planning practice. To address this gap, we introduce PlanBench-V, the first comprehensive benchmark for evaluating VLMs in spatial planning map interpretation. We first build the Spatial Planning Map Database (SPMD), an expert-annotated dataset of 223 planning maps and 1629 question-answer pairs curated by professional planners, covering diverse geographic regions and cartographic styles. We then propose a theory-informed evaluation framework assessing four progressive capabilities: Perception, Reasoning, Association, and Implementation, corresponding to the cognitive pipeline of planning map interpretation. Extensive experiments across two generations of VLMs show clear progress but persistent limitations. The best 2026 agentic reasoning model, Qwen3.6-Plus, substantially outperforms the best 2025 model, GPT-4o, by 27%. Nevertheless, all models still struggle with implementation-oriented tasks requiring evaluative judgment, policy sensitivity, and constraint-aware decision-making. These findings reveal fundamental limitations of current VLMs in professional planning contexts and highlight the need for domain-adaptive multimodal reasoning frameworks. Code and data are available at https://plangpt.github.io.

Planning is a fundamental capability for large language models (LLMs) because such complex tasks require models to coordinate goals, constraints, resources, and long-term consequences into executable and verifiable solutions. Existing planning benchmarks, however, usually treat planning data as fixed collections of instances rather than controllable generation targets. This limits scenario coverage, ties difficulty to surface-level proxies rather than structural sources, and offers limited support for scalable generation, automatic verification, or planning-oriented training. We introduce PlanningBench, a framework for generating scalable, diverse, and verifiable planning data for both evaluation and training. PlanningBench starts from real planning scenarios and abstracts practical workflows into a structured taxonomy of more than 30 task types, subtasks, constraint families, and difficulty factors. Guided by this taxonomy, a constraint-driven synthesis pipeline instantiates self-contained planning problems with adaptive difficulty control, quality filtering, and instance-level verification checklists. This shifts planning data construction from fixed benchmark collection to controllable generation while preserving realistic task grounding. We use PlanningBench to evaluate open-source and closed-source frontier LLMs, and find that current models still struggle to produce complete solutions under coupled constraints. Beyond evaluation, reinforcement learning on verified PlanningBench data improves performance on unseen planning benchmarks and broader instruction-following tasks. Further analysis suggests that determinate or well-specified optimal solutions provide clearer reward signals and more stable training dynamics. Overall, PlanningBench provides a controllable source of planning data for diagnosing and improving generalizable planning abilities in LLMs.