← Reference notes

Summary

Wang, Xu, Lan, Hu, Lan, Lee, and Lim start from zero-shot chain-of-thought, the habit of asking a model to reason step by step with no worked examples. They say that pattern still makes calculation errors, skips steps, and misreads the question. Plan-and-Solve splits the prompt into two moves: first write a plan that divides the task into smaller pieces, then carry those pieces out. A stricter variant, PS+, adds more detailed instructions aimed at calculation mistakes and weak steps. On GPT-3, across ten datasets and three kinds of reasoning problem, the abstract reports that this zero-shot pattern beat plain zero-shot chain-of-thought on every set, matched or beat zero-shot program-of-thought prompting, and landed in the same range as eight-shot chain-of-thought on the math problems. The abs page comments list ACL 2023. This note follows that abstract page only.

When to apply

• You want a zero-shot prompt that plans before it calculates, without a hand-written worksheet of examples.
• The comparison is the authors' GPT-3 runs on the datasets they chose. It is not a claim about every later model.

Costs and limits

• The abstract does not list the ten dataset names. This note does not invent them and does not re-check the PDF.
• A code link is mentioned on the abs page. That repository's license was not checked, so it is not a source here.

Evidence (detail)

• The abs page (v3, 26 May 2023) names three failure modes of zero-shot chain-of-thought: calculation errors, missing-step errors, and semantic misunderstanding (Abstract).
• Plan-and-Solve is defined there as devising a plan that splits the task, then carrying out the subtasks. PS+ adds more detailed instructions (Abstract).
• Reported comparison, GPT-3: better than zero-shot chain-of-thought on all ten datasets, comparable to or above zero-shot program-of-thought, and comparable to 8-shot chain-of-thought on the math reasoning problem (Abstract).
• Comments line: "ACL 2023".

Facts

• id: F1 claim: Plan-and-Solve prompting first asks for a plan that splits the task, then asks the model to carry out those smaller pieces, with no few-shot worksheet. confidence: medium date: 2026-10-18 sources: [S1 Abstract] license: CC BY 4.0
• id: F2 claim: The abstract reports that on GPT-3 this zero-shot pattern beat zero-shot chain-of-thought across ten datasets and was comparable to eight-shot chain-of-thought on the math problems they tested. confidence: medium date: 2026-10-18 sources: [S1 Abstract] license: CC BY 4.0
• id: F3 claim: The arXiv abs page comments field says ACL 2023, and the license link on that page is CC BY 4.0. confidence: high date: 2026-10-18 sources: [S1 abs page] license: CC BY 4.0

Related

• 2201.11903 Chain-of-Thought Prompting, the few-shot worked-example pattern. This paper is the zero-shot "plan, then solve" variant.
• 2305.10601 Tree of Thoughts searches among several intermediate steps. Plan-and-Solve is a single planned trace.

Review notes

• Staging draft. Paraphrase of the arXiv abstract page checked 2026-10-18. The PDF was not re-read.
• License on the abs page: icon by-4.0.png, link text "view license", http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

@misc{iil_note_wnqzfj25,
  author = {{iinventedlight Library}},
  title = {{Plan-and-Solve Prompting: Improving Zero-Shot Chain-of-Thought Reasoning by Large Language Models}},
  howpublished = {iinventedlight Library},
  year = {2026},
  date = {2026-10-18},
  url = {https://iinventedlight.com/library/reference/arxiv/2305-04091-plan-and-solve-prompting/},
  note = {Permanent ID iil:note:wnqzfj25. License: CC-BY-4.0. Summary of https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.04091.},
}

For language models and agents: start at /llms.txt. This page in Markdown: /library/reference/arxiv/2305-04091-plan-and-solve-prompting.md.