PreprintCited by 1Natural Language Processing TechniquesAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningTopic Modeling

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Unifying Tree Search Algorithm and Reward Design for LLM Reasoning: A Survey

Open access

Abstract

Deliberative tree search is a cornerstone of modern Large Language Model (LLM) research, driving the pivot from brute-force scaling toward algorithmic efficiency. This single paradigm unifies two critical frontiers: \textbf{Test-Time Scaling (TTS)}, which deploys on-demand computation to solve hard problems, and \textbf{Self-Improvement}, which uses search-generated data to durably enhance model parameters. However, this burgeoning field is fragmented and lacks a common formalism, particularly concerning the ambiguous role of the reward signal -- is it a transient heuristic or a durable learning target? This paper resolves this ambiguity by introducing a unified framework that deconstructs search algorithms into three core components: the \emph{Search Mechanism}, \emph{Reward Formulation}, and \emph{Transition Function}. We establish a formal distinction between transient \textbf{Search Guidance} for TTS and durable \textbf{Parametric Reward Modeling} for Self-Improvement. Building on this formalism, we introduce a component-centric taxonomy, synthesize the state-of-the-art, and chart a research roadmap toward more systematic progress in creating autonomous, self-improving agents.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2510.09988

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • No existing survey covers the four categories jointly, treats self-evaluation as a load-bearing pillar, or anchors the technical literature to an explicit autonomy/loop-closure axis.

    “Existing surveys cover single slices - on-policy distillation [12], tree-search-plus-reward methods [13] - but no survey spans the full spectrum from bounded selfrefinement to open-ended RSI.”

    From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [13]

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wei, J., Zhang, X., Yang, Y., Huang, W., Cao, J., Xu, S., Zhuang, X., Gao, Z., Abdul-Mageed, M., Lakshmanan, L. V. S., You, C., Ouyang, W., & Sun, S.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7090804293
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
tree search, large language models, LLM reasoning, test-time scaling, human development, reward modeling, search guidance, transition functions, autonomous agents, search algorithms

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