Do Agents Think Deeper? A Mechanistic Investigation of Layer-Wise Dynamics in Sequential Planning

Large reasoning models improve performance by generating extended chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, but this behavior becomes inefficient when applied to LLM agents. Current LLM agents often generate verbose textual reasoning at every decision step and allocate reasoning effort nearly uniformly across turns, leading to substantial inefficiency in multi-turn agentic trajectories. We propose Adaptive Latent Agentic Reasoning (ALAR), a dual-mode framework that uses compact latent reasoning for routine turns and selectively escalates to explicit chain-of-thought when deeper deliberation is needed. ALAR learns latent reasoning by using the agent's actions as supervision anchors and is further optimized to use latent reasoning when it is sufficient for task success and reserve explicit CoT for harder decisions. Experiments on agentic search and tool-use benchmarks show that ALAR maintains comparable or better task accuracy while substantially reducing generated tokens by up to 43.6% in search and 84.6% in tool use. These results demonstrate that ALAR improves the accuracy-efficiency trade-off of LLM agents by reducing unnecessary textual reasoning while preserving explicit deliberation for harder decision steps.

Large language models (LLMs), especially reasoning models, generate extended chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning that often contains explicit deliberation over future outcomes. Yet whether this deliberation constitutes genuine planning, how it is structured, and what aspects of it drive performance remain poorly understood. In this work, we introduce a new method to characterize LLM planning by extracting and quantifying search trees from reasoning traces in the four-in-a-row board game. By fitting computational models on the extracted search trees, we characterize how plans are structured and how they influence move decisions. We find that LLMs' search is shallower than humans', and that performance is predicted by search breadth rather than depth. Most strikingly, although LLMs expand deep nodes in their traces, their move choices are best explained by a myopic model that ignores those nodes entirely. A causal intervention study where we selectively prune CoT paragraphs further suggests that move selection is driven predominantly by shallow rather than deep nodes. These patterns contrast with human planning, where performance is driven primarily by deep search. Together, our findings reveal a key difference between LLM and human planning: while human expertise is driven by deeper search, LLMs do not act on deep lookahead. This dissociation offers targeted guidance for aligning LLM and human planning. More broadly, our framework provides a generalizable approach for interpreting the structure of LLM planning across strategic domains.

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.