aiqbench analysis
This research identifies a critical "Plan Declaration--Execution Gap" in LLM agents, demonstrating that generic planning methods often fail to maintain their intended structure during execution. By introducing a deterministic routing system that dispatches tasks to pattern-specific executors, the study significantly improves task success rates and enforces faithful plan adherence across diverse benchmarks. The findings highlight that while execution fidelity can be engineered, reliably selecting the optimal planning mode for specific tasks remains an open challenge for current models.
Do LLM Agents Execute the Plans They Declare? From Planning-Mode Declaration to Pattern-Specific Execution
arXiv:2609.38108v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) enable agents to solve long-horizon tasks by generating a plan and then executing it in an environment. However, successful planning requires two distinct capabilities: selecting an appropriate plan for the task and executing it faithfully. Existing planner--executor systems can fail at either stage, while final task success alone cannot distinguish selection from execution failures. We therefore study the Plan Declaration--Execution Gap and introduce Planning-as-Routing, where an LLM declares one of four planning modes: Predefined, Sequential, Hierarchical, or Search, and a deterministic router dispatches the task to the corresponding pattern-specific executor. Across four benchmarks and three LLMs, we find three consistent patterns. First, generic Plan+ReAct often fails to preserve declared planning structure, especially for longer plans: across three benchmarks, only (22)--(45%) of trajectories preserve it, whereas pattern-specific executors enforce the intended structure. Second, planning-mode effectiveness varies across environments and models: Search performs best on ALFWorld, Hierarchical on SWE-bench, and the strongest pattern can vary across models within the same benchmark. Third, the largest gains come from execution: pattern-specific executors improve task success from (0.48) to (0.92) on ALFWorld and from (0.36) to (0.44) on SWE-bench Verified over Plan+ReAct. Current LLMs, however, do not reliably select the strongest mode for each task, although few-shot examples improve selection in some benchmark--model combinations. Overall, reliable agent planning requires both effective mode selection and faithful execution: routing substantially closes the execution gap, while task-specific mode selection remains open.
Title:Do LLM Agents Execute the Plans They Declare? From Planning-Mode Declaration to Pattern-Specific Execution
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) enable agents to solve long-horizon tasks by generating a plan and then executing it in an environment. However, successful planning requires two distinct capabilities: selecting an appropriate plan for the task and executing it faithfully. Existing planner--executor systems can fail at either stage, while final task success alone cannot distinguish selection from execution failures. We therefore study the Plan Declaration--Execution Gap and introduce Planning-as-Routing, where an LLM declares one of four planning modes: Predefined, Sequential, Hierarchical, or Search, and a deterministic router dispatches the task to the corresponding pattern-specific executor. Across four benchmarks and three LLMs, we find three consistent patterns. First, generic Plan+ReAct often fails to preserve declared planning structure, especially for longer plans: across three benchmarks, only (22)--(45%) of trajectories preserve it, whereas pattern-specific executors enforce the intended structure. Second, planning-mode effectiveness varies across environments and models: Search performs best on ALFWorld, Hierarchical on SWE-bench, and the strongest pattern can vary across models within the same benchmark. Third, the largest gains come from execution: pattern-specific executors improve task success from (0.48) to (0.92) on ALFWorld and from (0.36) to (0.44) on SWE-bench Verified over Plan+ReAct. Current LLMs, however, do not reliably select the strongest mode for each task, although few-shot examples improve selection in some benchmark--model combinations. Overall, reliable agent planning requires both effective mode selection and faithful execution: routing substantially closes the execution gap, while task-specific mode selection remains open.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.38108 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.38108v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.38108 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 348 words
Related coverage

Vertical Advantage: Transforming Industries with Lakebase and Agentic AI
Databricks · Aug 27, 2026
Performance Profiling on AMD GPUs – Part 5: Profiling-Driven Kernel Optimization with an AI Code-Assist Tool
AMD · Jul 16, 2026
Strategic Evaluation of Planning Strategies for LLM Agents in Cyber-Physical Systems
arXiv · Aug 6, 2026

Spec-Driven Development with Claude Code: Writing Bulletproof Specs
Analytics Vidhya · Aug 23, 2026