The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Unifying Tree Search Algorithm and Reward Design for LLM Reasoning: A Survey
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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
Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops
Chen, M., Wang, L., & Qu, B. (2026) · arXiv
“Prior surveys cover single slices of this landscape: on-policy distillation [12] and tree-search-plus-reward methods for reasoning [13] sit inside our §4; agent and LLM-evaluation surveys treat components of §3 and §5 in isolation.”
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.
- ORCID
- Zhuang, Xiang
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2510.09988
- OpenAlex
- W7090804293
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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