REVIEW 1 cited by
When is Tree Search Useful for LLM Planning? It Depends on the Discriminator
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
In this paper, we examine how large language models (LLMs) solve multi-step problems under a language agent framework with three components: a generator, a discriminator, and a planning method. We investigate the practical utility of two advanced planning methods, iterative correction and tree search. We present a comprehensive analysis of how discrimination accuracy affects the overall performance of agents when using these two methods or a simpler method, re-ranking. Experiments on two tasks, text-to-SQL parsing and mathematical reasoning, show that: (1) advanced planning methods demand discriminators with at least 90% accuracy to achieve significant improvements over re-ranking; (2) current LLMs' discrimination abilities have not met the needs of advanced planning methods to achieve such improvements; (3) with LLM-based discriminators, advanced planning methods may not adequately balance accuracy and efficiency. For example, compared to the other two methods, tree search is at least 10--20 times slower but leads to negligible performance gains, which hinders its real-world applications. Code and data are available at https://github.com/OSU-NLP-Group/llm-planning-eval.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Iterative Deepening Sampling as Efficient Test-Time Scaling
ID-Sampling inserts self-correction trigger sentences at geometrically increasing token budgets during LLM generation, improving pass rates on MATH-500 and AIME over vanilla Best-of-N and majority voting.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.