Lookahead Tree-Based Rollouts for Enhanced Trajectory-Level Exploration in Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards
Shangyu Xing, Siyuan Wang, Chenyuan Yang, Xinyu Dai, Xiang Ren

TL;DR
This paper introduces Lookahead Tree-Based Rollouts (LATR), a novel strategy to increase trajectory diversity in reinforcement learning, leading to faster policy learning and improved reasoning performance in language models.
Contribution
LATR explicitly promotes trajectory diversity through branching and lookahead, significantly enhancing policy learning efficiency and effectiveness in RL with verifiable rewards.
Findings
LATR accelerates policy learning by 131% on average.
LATR improves final pass@1 performance by 4.2%.
LATR outperforms stochastic sampling in diverse reasoning tasks.
Abstract
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR), particularly with algorithms like Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), has proven highly effective in enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models. However, a critical bottleneck in current pipelines lies in the limited diversity of sampled trajectories during group rollouts. Homogeneous trajectories and their associated rewards would diminish the return signals for policy updates, thereby hindering effective policy learning. This lack of diversity stems primarily from token-level stochastic sampling, where local variations are likely to collapse into near-identical reasoning paths. To address this limitation, we propose Lookahead Tree-Based Rollouts (LATR), a novel rollout strategy designed to explicitly promotes trajectory-level diversity by enforcing branching into different candidate tokens likely to yield…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
- The paper is generally well written and the method is explained clearly. - The empirical evaluation shows the benefits of the enhanced strategy with respect to token-level stochastic sampling
- The paper claims to care about semantic similarity but they prune based on Edit distance which doesn’t seem to me to be a good measure of semantic similarity. Maybe could the authors explain why this is working in their evaluation tasks? - It seems that the new sampling process introduces could potentially introduce off-policy issues? Is this being taken into account in $\pi_{old}$, or am I misunderstanding something?
- Good presentation of the paper, clarity and ease of reading - Good contextualization of the paper in previous work, helpful for those who are not experts in this field - Simplicity of the introduced changes and strong evidence that it yields improvements - Clear experiments section with ablation studies
- I think an important ablation study is missing to show the claim of the paper that trajectory level lookahead is important and yields improvements over token-level lookahead. - Also, the authors mention that "token-level variations typically occur without lookahead ability, making local deviations (e.g., substituting “compute” with “calculate”) " however this can also happen in trajectory level variations (with multiple such subsitutions). The authors use the edit distance to quantity diver
1. The paper is clear and well-written 2. The proposed technique is intuitive and explained well. Using tree-based methods to focus on diverse trajectories based on model certainty is intuitive. 3. The experiments showcase model improvements in performance but significant improvements in the inference costs.
1. I think one major weakness in the paper is the empirical evaluation which is my primary reason for a lower score. There is only 1 model considered. I think to better understand the performance of LATR you would need to evaluate more models. 2. It is not clear how statistically significant the results are since standard deviations are not provided. How many times were the models trained for these experiments. 3. Other relevant baselines like TreeRL are not considered. I believe TreeRL also
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
