Extracting Search Trees from LLM Reasoning Traces Reveals Myopic Planning

Many LLMs plan before they act, yet planning and execution are often still entangled in one long generation trace, enforced only through prompts, or split across separate components. We argue that these two stages call for different computation: planning benefits from diversity and breadth, whereas execution demands precision and faithful adherence to a chosen strategy. Treating them as a single undifferentiated chain wastes tokens on routine derivation and makes it costly to explore alternative strategies at test time. We present the \textbf{Explore-Execute Chain (E\textsuperscript{2}C)}, which keeps both stages in one model but separates them structurally: a stochastic \textit{Exploration} phase drafts a concise high-level plan, and a deterministic \textit{Execution} phase carries it out. Causal SFT and RL train this split so that exploration stays informative and execution remains plan-faithful. Once plans are short yet decisive, extra inference compute can be directed to exploration rather than to repeatedly decoding full solutions. On AIME'2024 at $K{=}32$, \textbf{E\textsuperscript{2}C-ReAct Loop} reaches 53.3% accuracy with only 12.4k tokens, outperforming Tree-of-Thoughts ($N{=}32$: 50.0%, 71.3k). The same structure also supports lightweight domain adaptation: \textbf{Exploration-Focused SFT (EF-SFT)} updates only the planning phase, uses 3.5% of the tokens required by standard SFT, and improves medical benchmark accuracy by up to 14.5%.

Chess has long served as a model domain for studying search, expertise, decision-making, and artificial intelligence. The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has renewed the relevance of chess as a controlled environment for investigating strategic reasoning and comparing human and artificial decision-making. We present a systematic mapping study of recent research spanning human players, classical chess engines, neural and reinforcement-learning systems, LLMs, and hybrid approaches. The final map comprises 84 core study families, classified according to agent type, strategic-reasoning stages, and evaluation dimensions. The map reveals a literature strongly concentrated on situation assessment, evaluation, and action selection, while explicit planning, explanation, metacognition, and human--AI collaboration remain less explored. LLM research places particular emphasis on state representation and generalization, whereas grounded explanation appears more frequently in hybrid approaches combining language models with engines, expert knowledge, or other external structures. Two distinctions emerge that the map aggregates rather than resolves: hybrid systems differ in where and when heterogeneous capabilities combine, and evaluations that show improved human performance do not thereby establish human--AI synergy. We propose both as extensions of the mapping framework. We argue that chess provides a useful bridge between cognitive and computational perspectives on strategic reasoning, and identify explicit planning, grounded and faithful explanation, metacognitive calibration, and human--AI complementarity as directions for future research.

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.