M-Plan: Comprehensive Planning For LLM Agents with Memory Arrangement
Authors: Ziyang Liu, Jiakang Yuan, Jiayuan Fan, Tao Chen
Organizations: College of Future Information Technology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China · College of Intelligent Robotics and Advanced Manufacturing, Fudan University, Shanghai, China · Shanghai Innovation Institute, Shanghai, China
Large language model (LLM)-based agents have recently demonstrated outstanding performance in single-turn tasks, yet they continue to struggle with long-horizon tasks, particularly in environments without prior training. A key limitation of single LLMs is their difficulty in processing long contexts, which stems from weaknesses in continuous decision-making and reasoning capabilities. Although existing multi-agent systems (MAS) equipped with long-term memory bases can partially address this gap, they mostly rely on knowledge reuse or summarization, an approach that is often constrained by directly retrieval without any adaptation for the current task, while the retrieved memory may contain much history noises waiting to be preprocessed. In contrast, MAS characterized by task-specific guidance often lack long-term memory specifically designed for the guidance. To address these challenges, we propose M-Plan, a closed-loop MAS framework that integrates long-term and short-term memory. By combining global-local and past-current guidance, M-Plan enhances agents' performance on multi-turn tasks while maintaining a plug-and-play design. During task execution, agents receive task-specific milestones and insights, and are provided with local hints only when confusion arises, which form global-local guidance together. These guidance generation and utilization construct the short-term memory as well. After task completion, relevant information about the current task is optimized or reorganized before being sent to the long-term memory storage for future retrieval. The designments mentioned above build a comprehensive framework different from other individual long-term or short-term memory works. Extensive experiments on multi-turn tasks including ALFWorld, Webshop, and PDDL across diverse models demonstrate that M-Plan outperforms multiple baseline methods in both accuracy and efficiency.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The task-specific guidance consists of milestones and insights: milestones guide the action agent to follow a global task-solving path, while insights provide detailed considerations and important task-relevant knowledge; conditional hint when meeting action trap (invalid action). The hint will help correct the action in the next step.
Figure 2: The whole framework of M-Plan, containing long short-term memory, global-local guidance (milestones, insights, hints), and an optimizer module to form the closed-loop. More details can be seen in Section 3 .
Models
Methods
ALFWorld
Webshop
PDDL
SR.
SR.
AD
SR.
AD
Qwen3-32B
ReasoningBank
69.4±0.0
26.8±1.2
53.5±2.5
23.9±1.0
47.3±1.4
G-Memory
85.0±1.3
46.8±0.8
70.0±0.3
25.6±2.0
47.0±2.8
Hiplan
94.3±0.9
39.5±0.0
52.5±0.0
22.2±0.9
39.2±0.7
M-Plan
99.3±0.0
56.5±0.0
74.7±0.0
52.8±0.9
74.3±1.3
Qwen3-14B
ReasoningBank
65.7±0.0
28.2±0.6
60.7±1.7
17.2±0.9
37.9±0.3
Table 1: Results on ALFWorld, Webshop and PDDL. We report Success Rate ( SR. ) on all three benchmarks and Average Reward ( AD ) on Webshop and PDDL. Details about metrics can be seen in Sec. 4.1 . All SR. and AD values are reported in percentage (%).
Models
Methods
ALFWorld
Webshop
PDDL
AS.
ASS.
Meta-Step
ASS.
Meta-Step
AS.
ASS.
Meta-Step
Qwen3-32B
ReasoningBank
24.99
13.96
20.12
6.14
22.90
26.61
15.76
65.90
G-Memory
24.93
20.53
24.14
5.10
10.90
26.95
18.16
71.73
Hiplan
18.38
16.46
17.46
8.09
20.48
26.33
13.48
60.70
M-Plan
12.48
12.20
12.28
5.35
9.47
22.30
15.42
29.22
Qwen3-14B
ReasoningBank
26.30
13.91
21.17
5.90
20.93
28.16
19.33
112.42
Table 2: Comparison of average steps on ALFWorld, Webshop and PDDL. We report AS. , ASS. , and Meta-Step , while AS. is not considered for Webshop due to its specific characteristics, as discussed in Sec. 4.1 .
Models
Methods
ALFWorld
PDDL
At (M)
Ft
Ct (M)
At (M)
Ft
Ct (M)
Qwen3-32B
ReasoningBank
0.04
0.74
0.05
0.07
0.19
0.34
G-Memory
0.05
0.93
0.06
0.12
0.21
0.59
Hiplan
0.09
0.96
0.10
0.21
0.18
1.17
M-Plan
0.03
1.00
0.03
0.17
0.54
0.32
Qwen3-14B
ReasoningBank
0.04
0.69
0.06
0.07
0.13
0.54
Table 3: Token-efficiency comparison. We report At , Ft and Ct (see in Sec. 4.1 ), mainly focusing on the comparison of Ct . Webshop is not discussed for the fairness in Sec. 4.1 .
Methods
Modules
Performance
Optimizer
Retrieval
Insighter
Hinter
SR.
AD
AS.
Meta-Step.
Standard
✓
✓
✓
✓
52.8±0.9
74.3±1.3
22.30
29.22
w/o Optimizer
✗
✓
✓
✓
47.8±2.4
68.2±2.0
22.35
29.58
w/o Retrieval
✓
✗
✓
✓
42.5±0.8
61.4±0.9
23.63
35.12
w/o Insighter
✓
✓
✗
✓
48.3±2.9
66.8±1.5
22.81
31.44
w/o Hinter
✓
✓
✓
✗
41.1±1.9
61.6±1.8
24.01
37.64
Table 4: Ablation study of M-Plan on PDDL with Qwen3-32B. Retrieval indicates whether the short-term memory module receives cases from long-term memory. All SR. and AD values are reported in percentage (%).
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Models
Methods
ALFWorld
Webshop
AS.
ASS.
Meta-Step
ASS.
Meta-Step
Qwen3-32B
ReasoningBank
24.99±0.00
13.96±0.00
20.12±0.00
6.14±0.02
22.90±0.92
G-Memory
24.93±0.48
20.53±0.51
24.14±0.60
5.10±0.24
10.90±0.69
Hiplan
18.38±0.36
16.46±0.08
17.46±0.25
8.09±0.00
20.48±0.00
M-Plan
12.48±0.00
12.20±0.00
12.28±0.00
5.35±0.00
9.47±0.00
Qwen3-14B
ReasoningBank
26.30±0.00
13.91±0.00
21.17±0.00
5.90±0.13
20.93±0.02
Appendix
Table 5: Comparison of average steps on ALFWorld and Webshop. We report AS. , ASS. , and Meta-Step , while AS. is not considered for Webshop due to its specific characteristics, as discussed in Sec. 4.1 .
Models
Methods
PDDL
AS.
ASS.
Meta-Step
Qwen3-32B
ReasoningBank
26.61±0.31
15.76±1.84
65.90±0.15
G-Memory
26.95±0.69
18.16±1.90
71.73±0.43
Hiplan
26.33±0.14
13.48±0.10
60.70±0.07
M-Plan
22.30±0.13
15.42±0.03
29.22±0.01
Qwen3-14B
ReasoningBank
28.16±0.16
19.33±0.30
112.42±0.25
Appendix
Table 6: Comparison of average steps on PDDL. We report AS. , ASS. , and Meta-Step .
Models
Methods
ALFWorld
PDDL
At (M)
Ft
Ct (M)
At (M)
Ft
Ct (M)
Qwen3-32B
ReasoningBank
0.04±0.00
0.74±0.00
0.05±0.00
0.07±0.00
0.19±0.01
0.34±0.01
G-Memory
0.05±0.00
0.93±0.01
0.06±0.00
0.12±0.00
0.21±0.02
0.59±0.07
Hiplan
0.09±0.00
0.96±0.01
0.10±0.00
0.21±0.00
0.18±0.01
1.17±0.06
M-Plan
0.03±0.00
1.00±0.00
0.03±0.00
0.17±0.00
0.54±0.01
0.32±0.01
Qwen3-14B
ReasoningBank
0.04±0.00
0.69±0.00
0.06±0.00
0.07±0.00
0.13±0.01
0.54±0.03
Appendix
Table 7: Token-efficiency comparison. We report At , Ft and Ct (see in Sec. 4.1 ), mainly focusing on the comparison of Ct . Webshop is not discussed for the fairness in Sec. 4.1 .
Methods
Modules
Performance
Optimizer
Retrieval
Insighter
Hinter
SR.
AD
AS.
Meta-Step.
Standard
✓
✓
✓
✓
52.8±0.9
74.3±1.3
22.30±0.13
29.22±0.01
w/o Optimizer
✗
✓
✓
✓
47.8±2.4
68.2±2.0
22.35±0.04
29.58±0.02
w/o Retrieval
✓
✗
✓
✓
42.5±0.8
61.4±0.9
23.63±0.07
35.12±0.03
w/o Insighter
✓
✓
✗
✓
48.3±2.9
66.8±1.5
22.81±0.59
31.44±0.08
w/o Hinter
✓
✓
✓
✗
41.1±1.9
61.6±1.8
24.01±0.42
37.64±0.08
Appendix
Table 8: Ablation study of M-Plan on PDDL with Qwen3-32B. Retrieval indicates whether the short-term memory module receives cases from long-term memory. All SR. and AD values are reported in percentage (%).