Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The paper analyzes the impact of beam width on LLM reasoning, revealing that excessive beam width can degrade performance due to overestimation bias. Using Extreme Value Theory, they derive a maximum useful beam width (k-hat) dependent on the signal-to-noise ratio of the scorer. Empirical validation across 7B parameter models and diverse tasks demonstrates that perplexity scoring, with high noise, benefits from minimal beam width (k-hat=1), while PRM scoring, with lower noise, benefits from wider beams (k-hat >= 4).
Turns out, blindly widening the beam search in your LLM can actually *hurt* performance due to overestimation bias, and the optimal width depends critically on your scorer's signal-to-noise ratio.
Wider beam search should improve LLM reasoning, but when should you stop widening? Prior work on beam width selection has focused on inference efficiency \citep{qin2025dsbd, freitag2017beam}, without analyzing whether wider search can \emph{hurt} output quality. We present an analysis, grounded in Extreme Value Theory, that answers this question. Beam selection over noisy scorer outputs introduces a systematic overestimation bias that grows with the candidate pool size, and we derive a maximum useful beam width $\hat{k}$ beyond which search degrades performance. This critical width depends on the signal-to-noise ratio of the scorer: $\hat{k}$ grows exponentially with $(螖/蟽)^2$, where $螖> 0$ is the quality advantage of correct paths over incorrect ones and $蟽$ is the scorer noise. We validate this theory by comparing perplexity-guided and PRM-guided beam search across three 7B-parameter models and ten domains on MR-BEN (5,975 questions). Perplexity scoring, with its high noise, yields $\hat{k} = 1$: search provides no benefit at any width tested. PRM scoring, with lower noise, yields $\hat{k} \geq 4$, with gains of up to 8.9 percentage points. The same model, the same algorithm, but different scorers place $\hat{k}$ at opposite ends of the beam width range. Our analysis identifies the scorer's signal-to-noise ratio as the key quantity governing beam width selection, and we propose diagnostic indicators for choosing the beam width in practice.
