When Agents Slow Down: Understanding LLM Agents’ Test-Time Strategies via Elo-per-token Analysis

Large language model (LLM) agents allocate test-time compute adaptively as they revise solutions, use tools, explore alternatives, and decide when to stop. This test-time strategy makes it difficult to measure how agent performance scales. We study open-ended tasks that provide continuous scores for intermediate submissions, making progress observable throughout long trajectories. We propose Elo-per-token analysis, which tracks the best solution found at each token budget and uses a Bradley--Terry model to aggregate within-task orderings into Elo ratings across tasks with different score scales. We apply it to four general-purpose agents on four open-ended benchmarks, with sessions of up to $100$M tokens, and to three feedback-driven LLM optimization harnesses in controlled single-task interventions. Independent sampling provides a theoretically characterized reference, for which Elo grows linearly with log compute. Against this reference, agents can initially convert tokens into Elo faster than independent sampling, but their marginal gains diminish and eventually fall below the reference. In contrast, the strongest historical human contestants improve superlinearly over contest time on shared AtCoder Heuristic Contest tasks, providing evidence of continual learning and substantial headroom after agents slow down. We define the scaling inflection point as the per-session budget where marginal Elo gains match the independent-sampling reference. Using this point as the per-session budget, we split $100$M tokens across parallel sessions on FrontierCS Polyomino Packing, gaining $+264$ Elo over one long session and $+355$ over ten short sessions.