Spend Less, Reason Better: Budget-Aware Value Tree Search for LLM Agents
Organizations: University of British Columbia · Vector Institute
Abstract
Test-time scaling has become a dominant paradigm for improving LLM agent reliability, yet current approaches treat compute as an abundant resource, allowing agents to exhaust token and tool budgets on redundant steps or dead-end trajectories. Existing budget-aware methods either require expensive fine-tuning or rely on coarse, trajectory-level heuristics that cannot intervene mid-execution. We propose the Budget-Aware Value Tree (BAVT), a training-free inference-time framework that models multi-hop reasoning as a dynamic search tree guided by step-level value estimation within a single LLM backbone. Another key innovation is a budget-conditioned node selection mechanism that uses the remaining resource ratio as a natural scaling exponent over node values, providing a principled, parameter-free transition from broad exploration to greedy exploitation as the budget depletes. To combat the well-known overconfidence of LLM self-evaluation, BAVT employs a residual value predictor that scores relative progress rather than absolute state quality, enabling reliable pruning of uninformative or redundant tool calls. We further provide a theoretical convergence guarantee, proving that BAVT reaches a terminal answer with probability at least under an explicit finite budget bound. Extensive evaluations on four multi-hop QA benchmarks across two model families demonstrate that BAVT consistently outperforms parallel sampling baselines. Most notably, BAVT under strict low-budget constraints surpasses baseline performance at the resource allocation, establishing that intelligent budget management fundamentally outperforms brute-force compute scaling.
Figures & tables
| Components | HotpotQA | 2Wiki | MuSiQue | Bamboogle | AVG | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tree | Value | Budget | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 |
| 0.344 | 0.469 | 0.205 | 0.261 | 0.142 | 0.203 | 0.381 | 0.517 | 0.268 | 0.363 | |||
| ✓ | 0.243 | 0.340 | 0.124 | 0.163 | 0.100 | 0.140 | 0.392 | 0.478 | 0.215 | 0.280 | ||
| ✓ | ✓ | 0.356 | 0.481 | 0.265 | 0.332 | 0.158 | 0.224 | 0.456 | 0.575 | 0.309 | 0.403 | |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 0.402 | 0.552 | 0.413 | 0.517 | 0.186 | 0.272 | 0.552 | 0.666 | 0.388 | 0.502 |
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Parameter | Value |
| Raw Critic Value Scale | |
| Residual Delta Bounds ( ) | |
| Normalized State Value Range | |
| Terminal Confidence Threshold ( ) | 0.8 |
| Budget Backstop Threshold ( ) | 0.2 |
| Max Output Tokens per Call | 512 |
| Budget | Max Tool | Search | Reasoning Model (GPT-OSS) | Instruct Model (Qwen) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tier | Calls | Cost ($) | Token Cost ($) | Total Cost ($) | Token Cost ($) | Total Cost ($) |
| Low | 5 | 0.025 | 0.00088 | 0.02588 | 0.00108 | 0.02608 |
| Middle | 10 | 0.050 | 0.00176 | 0.05176 | 0.00216 | 0.05216 |
| High | 20 | 0.100 | 0.00352 | 0.10352 | 0.00432 | 0.10432 |