The policy-gradient theorem gives the exact gradient under the current policy, but finite on-policy samples may miss rare high-return trajectories. We study whether tree search improves their coverage within a fixed budget while controlling gradient bias. We introduce On-Policy Parallel Tree Search (OPTS) and Tree Trajectory Policy Optimization (TTPO) using on-policy tree trajectories, which sample new suffixes from the current policy at visited states. This needs no action-distribution correction, although branching changes state visitation. Our Branch Aggregation Lemma shows that branch-weighted tree statistics recover chain expectations when branch choices and weights are fixed before outgoing transitions are sampled. OPTS selects expansion states using estimated performance differences. Under deterministic dynamics, exact values, and max-backup advantages, the induced search policy's expected return improves monotonically with the budget. We bound the gradient bias from adaptive expansion and show that max backup assigns prefix credit to actions leading to better discovered suffixes. Against a finite chain reference, TTPG's measured bias stays near its no-branching level, while NaivePG's bias grows from 0.1251 to 0.4884. At matched budgets, reward- and value-guided OPTS improve correct-answer coverage and majority-vote accuracy over independent sampling. At matched branch counts, OPTS + TTPG gains coverage with a modest bias increase relative to Fixed-branch + TTPG. Under matched interaction or rollout budgets, OPTS-TTPO improves MuJoCo tail returns over PPO by up to 28.6%, achieves a 34-22-1 win-loss-tie record against PPO on Atari-57 under the last-100-log mean-return metric, and improves micro-averaged avg@32 and pass@32 over PPO across all four Qwen3 models.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: OPTS-TTPO. OPTS selects states maximizing the length-penalized performance-difference estimate and samples on-policy suffixes from them in parallel; TTPO applies TreeGAE and branch weights to PPO updates.
Figure 2: NaivePG versus TTPG under global token-level normalization.
Figure 4: Matched-budget coverage and accuracy. OPTS uses fixed Smax=3 ; the IID curve is the matched baseline.
Figure 5: Mechanistic diagnostics. (a) Coverage gain versus relative bias difference from s=0 . (b) Token-weighted extra prefix credit (max − mean) versus distance to the first downstream branch.
Figure 6: MuJoCo learning curves; tail Δ is the final-100-point relative return improvement over PPO.
Variant
Hopper
Walker2d
HalfCheetah
Ant
Humanoid
Mean
Random + mean
+10.5
+5.6
-3.2
+15.0
-1.3
+5.3
Guided + mean
+8.2
+16.7
+9.5
-0.6
+6.3
+8.0
Guided + max, unweighted
+7.5
+6.8
+26.2
+8.7
+8.2
+11.5
Guided + max (full)
+11.2
+24.9
+28.6
+13.9
+15.0
+18.7
Table 1: MuJoCo component ablations. Tail-return change relative to PPO (%), averaged over ten seeds at (ξ,Smax)=(0.6,1) . Tail return averages the final 100 logged points; Mean weights tasks equally.
Human-normalized IQM
Task wins
Metric
PPO
OPTS-TTPO
PPO
OPTS-TTPO
Tie
Full-training mean return
0.247
0.255
26
31
0
Last-100-log mean return
0.357
0.374
22
34
1
Table 2: Human-normalized IQM and task-level win counts on Atari-57. Each win compares the two methods after averaging the corresponding raw-return summary over three seeds for that game.
Methods
MATH500
MinervaMath
AMC23
AIME24
AIME25
AIME26
Macro Average
Micro Average
avg@32
pass@32
avg@32
pass@32
avg@32
pass@32
avg@32
pass@32
avg@32
pass@32
avg@32
pass@32
avg@32
pass@32
avg@32
pass@32
Qwen3-1.7B-Base
PPO
0.6973
0.9080
0.2986
0.5515
0.4289
0.8500
0.0823
0.3333
0.0469
0.3333
0.0417
0.2667
0.2659
0.5405
0.5013
0.7384
DAPO
0.6935
0.9100
0.2878
0.5257
0.4133
0.8750
0.0854
0.3667
0.0490
0.3000
0.0385
0.2667
0.2612
0.5407
0.4953
0.7328
REINFORCE++
0.6877
0.9040
0.2911
0.5184
0.4016
0.8250
0.0823
0.3000
0.0521
0.3667
0.0354
0.2667
0.2584
0.5301
0.4924
0.7251
OPTS-TTPO
0.7114
0.9220
0.2920
0.5404
0.4328
0.8000
0.1063
0.4333
0.0479
0.3000
0.0521
0.2667
0.2738
0.5437
0.5085
0.7428
Table 3: LLM performance at the synchronized step-400 checkpoint, from 32 independent responses per prompt. Macro Average weights the six benchmarks equally; Micro Average pools their 500, 272, 40, 30, 30, and 30 problems, respectively (902 in total). Column bests are bold.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Setting
MuJoCo
Atari-57
Optimizer
Adam, ϵ=10−5
Adam, ϵ=10−5
Learning rate
3×10−4 , linearly annealed to 0
2.5×10−4 , linearly annealed to 0
Rollout batch
1×2048=2048 transitions
8×128=1024 transitions
Minibatches / update epochs
32 (64 transitions each) / 10
4 (256 transitions each) / 4
Discount / GAE parameter
γ=0.99 , λ=0.95
γ=0.99 , λ=0.95
Policy clip / clipped value loss
0.2 / yes
0.1 / yes
Appendix
Table D.1: Optimization hyperparameters shared by PPO and OPTS-TTPO in the control experiments.
Method
Method-specific settings
PPO
4,096 prompts and rollouts per update; GAE with γ=1 and λ=0.999 ; learned critic with learning rate 10−5 and value clip 0.5; symmetric policy clip 0.2; token-level loss aggregation.
DAPO
512 prompts with 8 responses each; group-relative advantages and no critic; asymmetric policy clip (0.2,0.28) with dual-clip constant 10; token-level loss aggregation; overlong-response buffer of 1,024 tokens with penalty factor 1.0.
REINFORCE++
512 prompts with 8 responses each; per-prompt mean reward baseline followed by global advantage whitening, with no critic; symmetric policy clip 0.2; token-level loss aggregation.
OPTS-TTPO
4,096 rollouts collected over the search rounds specified in Appendix D ; TreeGAE with a learned critic at learning rate 10−5 ; symmetric policy clip 0.2; branch-weighted token-level loss aggregation.
Appendix
Table D.2: Method-specific hyperparameters for LLM RLVR.
Figure E.1: Rollout scaling of OPTS across individual reasoning benchmarks. Top: reward-guided OPTS versus i.i.d. pass@k . Bottom: value-guided OPTS versus i.i.d. self-consistency. Each column reports one benchmark under matched rollout budgets k∈{8,16,32,64,128} at fixed Smax=3 .
Figure F.1: Learned-critic search-budget results by benchmark. Rows report reward-guided ΔJλ , reward-guided ΔJ , value-guided ΔJλ , and value-guided ΔJ , where each difference is relative to Smax=0 . Columns show the six reasoning benchmarks.
Figure G.1: Rebranching position matters. Avg@32 versus the maximum number of OPTS search rounds for performance-difference, uniformly random, and fixed-midpoint rebranching on the same trees and budgets.
Figure H.1: ξ×s grid on the MuJoCo development tasks. Top: full-training mean return; bottom: tail return. Black outline: the selected configuration (0.6,1) ; white dashed outline: the best cell of each panel. The right-most column averages the min–max-normalized grids of Hopper-v4 and Humanoid-v4.
Figure I.1: Full Atari-57 learning curves for PPO and OPTS-TTPO. Each panel shows one game; curves are smoothed raw mean returns for different random seeds.
Metric
Comparison
Wins
Losses
Ties
Full training
Max vs. Mean
19
22
16
Full training
Max vs. PPO
27
30
0
Full training
Mean vs. PPO
31
26
0
Tail
Max vs. Mean
18
22
17
Tail
Max vs. PPO
34
22
1
Tail
Mean vs. PPO
34
22
1
Appendix
Table J.1: Backup-rule comparisons at fixed hyperparameters.
Full
Tail
Game
PPO
Mean
Max
PPO
Mean
Max
ALE_Surround-v5
-2.83
-2.94
-2.94
-1.14
-0.91
-0.91
AlienNoFrameskip-v4
989.13
947.58
945.15
1186.07
1236.76
1372.65
AmidarNoFrameskip-v4
173.34
192.09
191.86
246.73
301.20
307.77
AssaultNoFrameskip-v4
922.34
967.38
968.90
1073.07
1278.37
1208.08
AsterixNoFrameskip-v4
1553.26
1671.41
1690.02
2051.14
2223.03
2194.67
Appendix
Table J.2: Per-game seed-mean returns (1), shown to two decimals. Full: all logged points; Tail: final 100 points. Win counts use unrounded values.
Full
Tail
Game
PPO
Mean
Max
PPO
Mean
Max
KangarooNoFrameskip-v4
1229.65
1612.89
1587.39
1802.94
2458.78
2444.39
KrullNoFrameskip-v4
3762.75
3802.40
3776.63
4173.87
4482.65
4402.41
KungFuMasterNoFrameskip-v4
6102.91
5726.26
5726.26
5609.22
6604.17
6604.17
MontezumaRevengeNoFrameskip-v4
0.21
0.06
0.48
0.00
0.17
0.00
MsPacmanNoFrameskip-v4
1185.86
1131.68
1184.35
1471.88
1464.83
1551.24
Appendix
Table J.3: Per-game seed-mean returns (2), shown to two decimals. Full: all logged points; Tail: final 100 points. Win counts use unrounded values.
Figure K.1: Qwen3-1.7B per-checkpoint evaluation across six reasoning benchmarks. Each column shows one benchmark, with avg@32 above pass@32 ; all 20 checkpoints of every method are scored with the same verifier. Curves show a three-point moving average that retains the step-20 and step-400 endpoints.
Stage of one training step
Seconds
Share
Rollout generation (vLLM, all rounds)
348.1
43.7%
Critic update
214.4
26.9%
Actor update
131.4
16.5%
Critic value forwards (all rounds)
56.5
7.1%
Old log-probabilities
39.2
4.9%
Search module: Δ path refresh + selection
3.2
0.4%
Appendix
Table L.1: Wall-clock composition of an OPTS-TTPO step ( Qwen3-1.7B , Smax=3 , eight H200 GPUs).
Reward-based reinforcement learning for language models, exemplified by Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), collapses an entire stochastic trajectory into a single scalar reward. This is clean and scalable, but it explores and allocates reward inefficiently: a trajectory may contain many causal decisions, recovery attempts, and environment-randomness events, yet every token or action inherits one trajectory-level advantage. We study tree-based rollout construction as a compute-allocation problem for policy-gradient estimation. Our central claim is that branches should be placed not where the policy is merely uncertain, but where an additional branch most reduces uncertainty about the policy gradient per unit of compute. From a law-of-total-variance decomposition of the local policy-gradient random variable, we derive two allocation laws: new branches reduce decision uncertainty, while repeated suffix rollouts reduce continuation uncertainty. The resulting EPIG-Tree score allocates branches using the already computed rollouts. It estimates occupancy- and score-weighted value uncertainty, along with a suffix law ne∝we∥∇θlogπ(ae∣he)∥σe/ce. Empirically, EPIG reduces gradient MSE in cloned-state control, winning in all nine dense continuous-control environments of a 13-environment sweep and recovering the reference gradient direction near-perfectly, and it improves frozen-LLM gradient calibration relative to entropy branching. In online single-turn math, tree-local credit beats flat GRPO, while branch placement is secondary to token-level credit assignment. In online multi-turn Wordle, EPIG attains the highest final win rate (0.850), overtaking flat GRPO, which saturates early at 0.790, and entropy branching as training proceeds, confirming that the gradient-estimation advantage transfers to a stateful, large-action setting.
Deep search agents operate over trajectories spanning dozens of steps, yet standard reinforcement learning provides only a single outcome reward per trajectory, which is far too sparse for effective credit assignment. On-policy self-distillation (OPSD) addresses this by using the model's own logits as dense token-level teachers, but extending it to search agents introduces a fundamental tension: the teacher, having access to privileged information such as the correct answer, produces a distribution that differs systematically from the student's exploration-based reasoning, and naive distillation causes the student to inherit this information asymmetry rather than learn better search strategies. We resolve this tension through two contributions. First, we construct Evidence Anchors, which are concise, step-level evidence snippets extracted from the web, as privileged information that captures key reasoning steps without revealing the entire answer path. Second, we propose Step-Level Self-Distilled Policy Optimization (SSPO), which converts teacher-student disagreement into step-level advantage weights within GRPO, applied exclusively to incorrect trajectories. This design decouples what to update from how much to update: the outcome reward determines the direction of policy change, while the teacher modulates its magnitude at each step. Correct trajectories are left untouched, preserving their diversity. On Qwen3-8B, SSPO consistently outperforms GRPO across BrowseComp, GAIA, and FRAMES, surpassing or matching GRPO trained with twice as many gradient steps while adding only about 5 percent overhead per step from a single additional forward pass.
Haoze Wu, Chuqiao Kuang, Tianyi Zhuang +1
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · Huawei Technologies Ltd.
We formalize Rollout Informativeness under a Fixed Budget (RIFB) as the expected non-vanishing policy-gradient mass that a tool-use rollout set injects into Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). We prove that any budget-agnostic independent sampler suffers a collapse rate bounded away from zero for hard prompts regardless of the budget. Motivated by this, we recast intermediate state selection as a monotone submodular maximization problem, where a greedy one-step selector enjoys a 1 minus 1/e approximation guarantee. Our Uncertainty-aware Upper Confidence Bound (UUCB) terms arise as closed-form marginal gains of this objective. This turns the token-level entropy bonus from an empirical trick into an analytic consequence of the formulation. We present InfoTree, a training-time tree-search framework coupling UUCB with a learned Adaptive Budget Allocator (ABA) and an asynchronous Speculative Expansion scheme. ABA rescues prompts whose initial tree is wasted on uniform outcomes, lifting the mixed-outcome ratio from 58.1 percent to 76.3 percent with less than 5 percent budget overhead. Speculative Expansion reduces wall-clock overhead from 14.3 percent to 4.8 percent by tolerating bounded staleness in UUCB scores. Across nine benchmarks spanning math reasoning (AIME 2024 and 2025, MATH-500, OlympiadBench, USAMO), web-search agents (GAIA, HLE-100, BrowseComp-lite), and tool-rich coding and OS agents (APPS-verified, AgentBench-OS), InfoTree outperforms flat GRPO, DeepSearch, Tree-GRPO, AT2PO, CW-GRPO, and RC-GRPO. Head-to-head compositions with Tree-GRPO prefix sharing and CW-GRPO contribution weights deliver further gains, confirming that our selector operates orthogonally to rollout reuse and trajectory re-weighting. A 5 by 5 by 5 robustness grid reveals that over three quarters of the hyperparameter space lies on a performance plateau, confirming UUCB robustness.
Yuelin Hu, Zhenbo Yu, Zhengxue Cheng +2
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Shanghai Maritime University