The DOI matches its DataCite record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Learning When to Plan: Efficiently Allocating Test-Time Compute for LLM Agents
Abstract
Training large language models (LLMs) to reason via reinforcement learning (RL) significantly improves their problem-solving capabilities. In agentic settings, existing methods like ReAct prompt LLMs to explicitly plan before every action; however, we demonstrate that always planning is computationally expensive and degrades performance on long-horizon tasks, while never planning further limits performance. To address this, we introduce a conceptual framework formalizing dynamic planning for LLM agents, enabling them to flexibly decide when to allocate test-time compute for planning. We propose a simple two-stage training pipeline: (1) supervised fine-tuning on diverse synthetic data to prime models for dynamic planning, and (2) RL to refine this capability in long-horizon environments. Experiments on the Crafter environment show that dynamic planning agents trained with this approach are more sample-efficient and consistently achieve more complex objectives. Additionally, we demonstrate that these agents can be effectively steered by human-written plans, surpassing their independent capabilities and highlighting the potential for safer and more collaborative agentic systems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Beyond static guidance, Learning When to Plan (Paglieri et al., 2025) formulates dynamic planning as an RL-driven test-time compute allocation problem, training agents to decide when to invoke explicit planning to balance reasoning performance against computational cost.”
From The landscape of agentic reinforcement learning for LLMs: a survey (2025) · cites this paper as Paglieri et al., 2025
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm
Silver, D., Hubert, T., Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Lai, M., Guez, A., Lanctot, M., Sifre, L., Kumaran, D., Graepel, T., et al. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1712.01815 · Cited by 1,102 · cited 1×
“Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS)(Coulom, 2006), combined with deep neural networks, has driven landmark systems like AlphaGo and MuZero(Silver et al., 2017b;a; Schrittwieser et al., 2020).”
Stop Overthinking: A Survey on Efficient Reasoning for Large Language Models
Sui, Y., Chuang, Y.-N., Wang, G., Zhang, J., Zhang, T., Yuan, J., Liu, H., Wen, A., Zhong, S., Zou, N., et al. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 517 · cited 2×
“For instance, excessive reasoning can lead to “overthink-ing” (Sui et al., 2025) and longer contexts, which in turn dilute attention to the most critical information (Liu et al., 2023).”
Grattafiori, A., Dubey, A., Jauhri, A., Pandey, A., Kadian, A., Al-Dahle, A., Letman, A., Mathur, A., Schelten, A., Vaughan, A., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.21783 · Cited by 505 · cited 2×
“The actor model was based on the 8B parameter Llama 3.1 architecture, while the critic model utilized the 1B parameter Llama 3.3 architecture (Grattafiori et al., 2024).”
InfluentialHa, D., & Schmidhuber, J. (2018) · Zenodo · doi:10.5281/zenodo.1207631 · Cited by 187
Quiet-STaR: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Think Before Speaking
Zelikman, E., Harik, G., Shao, Y., Jayasiri, V., Haber, N., & Goodman, N. D. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.09629 · Cited by 16
Absolute Zero: Reinforced Self-play Reasoning with Zero Data
Zhao, A., Wu, Y., Yue, Y., Wu, T., Xu, Q., Yue, Y., Lin, M., Wang, S., Wu, Q., Zheng, Z., et al. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 13 · cited 1×
“Moreover, emergent planning capabilities have been observed from RL-trained base models as comments in code tasks (Zhao et al., 2025).”
Cited by
The landscape of agentic reinforcement learning for LLMs: a survey
Zhang, G., Geng, H., Yu, X., Yin, Z., Zhang, Z., Tan, Z., Zhou, H., Li, Z., Xue, X., Li, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.02547 · Cited by 229
Metadata
- Authors
- Paglieri, D., Cupiał, B., Cook, J., Piterbarg, U., Tuyls, J., Grefenstette, E., Foerster, J. N., Parker-Holder, J., & Rocktäschel, T.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- arXiv
- 2509.03581
- References
- 6
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Learning When to Plan: Efficiently Allocating Test-Time Compute for LLM Agents. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2509.03581
- The paper
- Paglieri, D., Cupiał, B., Cook, J., Piterbarg, U., Tuyls, J., Grefenstette, E., Foerster, J. N., Parker-Holder, J., & Rocktäschel, T. (2025). Learning When to Plan: Efficiently Allocating Test-Time Compute for LLM Agents. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2509.03581
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.