Provable Test-Time Scaling for Beam Search in LLM Reasoning
On the map: LLM reasoning → Test-time compute and efficient thinking
Abstract (arXiv)
Beam-search-based test-time methods provide an effective way to improve large language model (LLM) performance on long-horizon generation by pruning invalid reasoning paths early, leading to significantly improved reasoning efficiency and more favorable test-time cost scaling. Despite strong empirical success, the theoretical understanding of beam search remains limited. In this paper, we study the test-time compute guarantee of the commonly used beam search framework that uses the model's internal log-likelihood for intermediate scoring, while relying on an external reward model only after a complete response is generated. We first establish a lower bound for vanilla beam search, showing that at least Omega(C^star(x)2) samples are required for the optimal response to survive, where C^star(x) is the token-level coverage coefficient for prompt x. This motivates our modified confidence-filtered beam search (CF-Beam), which reduces the sufficient coverage dependence from quadratic to nearly linear under prefix competitiveness, for fixed horizon, gap, and target accuracy. We then show that the regret of CF-Beam is upper-bounded by the probability of rare failure events and the reward estimation error scaled by a path-level coverage coefficient, where the rare-failure term vanishes as per-step sampling increases. Our results highlight a fundamental advantage of beam search over sequence-level inference methods such as Best-of-N and Best-of-Majority. While the guarantees of these approaches typically involve coverage coefficients that grow exponentially with the horizon L, CF-Beam controls the dominant search-induced term through a token-level coverage coefficient that scales polynomially with L. Our numerical experiments further confirm that beam search is more robust on hard instances and under increasing reasoning horizons.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 32 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Sep 2026.
Builds on
32 of 47 references.
Closest ancestors · 13
Same direction, newest first
- 2025On the Limits of Test-Time Compute: Sequential Reward Filtering for Better Inference4 Dec
- 2025Optimal Self-Consistency for Efficient Reasoning with Large Language Models15 Nov
- 2025Certified Self-Consistency: Statistical Guarantees and Test-Time Training for Reliable Reasoning in LLMs20 Oct
- 2025Does Thinking More always Help? Mirage of Test-Time Scaling in Reasoning Models4 Jun
- 2025Scalable Best-of-N Selection for Large Language Models via Self-Certainty25 Feb
- 2025ReVISE: Learning to Refine at Test-Time via Intrinsic Self-Verification20 Feb
- 2025Scaling Flaws of Verifier-Guided Search in Mathematical Reasoning1 Feb
- 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters6 Aug
- 2024Inference Scaling Laws: An Empirical Analysis of Compute-Optimal Inference for Problem-Solving with Language Models1 Aug
- 2024Theoretical guarantees on the best-of-n alignment policy3 Jan
- 2023Universal Self-Consistency for Large Language Model Generation29 Nov
- 2023Alphazero-like Tree-Search can Guide Large Language Model Decoding and Training29 Sep
1 more
Other references · 19
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
- 2023Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Modelscited by 810
- 2024Rewarding Progress: Scaling Automated Process Verifiers for LLM Reasoningcited by 267
- 2025Learning to Reason without External Rewardscited by 199
- 2024Self-Improvement in Language Models: The Sharpening Mechanismcited by 102
- 2025Is Best-of-N the Best of Them? Coverage, Scaling, and Optimality in Inference-Time Alignmentcited by 91
- 2025Evaluation of Best-of-N Sampling Strategies for Language Model Alignmentcited by 38
- 2025Trust, But Verify: A Self-Verification Approach to Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewardscited by 38
- 2024Unveiling the Statistical Foundations of Chain-of-Thought Prompting Methodscited by 27
- 2024Deductive Beam Search: Decoding Deducible Rationale for Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 24
- 2025Efficient Process Reward Model Training via Active Learningcited by 14
7 more
- 2025Best-of-Majority: Minimax-Optimal Strategy for Pass@k Inference Scalingcited by 8
- 2024Guaranteed Generation from Large Language Modelscited by 7
- 2025Outcome-Based Online Reinforcement Learning: Algorithms and Fundamental Limitscited by 7
- 2026Reward Modeling from Natural Language Human Feedbackcited by 7
- 2025Theoretical Modeling of Large Language Model Self-Improvement Training Dynamics Through Solver-Verifier Gapcited by 6
- 2025Response-Level Rewards Are All You Need for Online Reinforcement Learning in LLMs: A Mathematical Perspectivecited by 5
- 2025Don't Throw Away Your Beams: Improving Consistency-based Uncertainties in LLMs via Beam Searchcited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Unifying Tree Search Algorithm and Reward Design for LLM Reasoning: A Survey
- 2023Self-Evaluation Guided Beam Search for Reasoning
- 2025Bag of Tricks for Inference-time Computation of LLM Reasoning
- 2025Chain-in-Tree: Back to Sequential Reasoning in LLM Tree Search
- 2026Predicting and improving test-time scaling laws via reward tail-guided search
- 2026ThinkBooster: A Unified Framework for Seamless Test-Time Scaling of LLM Reasoning
- 2025Adaptive Test-Time Reasoning via Reward-Guided Dual-Phase Search
- 2025Less is More: Improving LLM Reasoning with Minimal Test-Time Intervention