SCoRE: Benchmarking Long-Chain Reasoning in Commonsense Scenarios

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.06218v2
• Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 15:48:09 GMT
• Title: SCoRE: Benchmarking Long-Chain Reasoning in Commonsense Scenarios
• Authors: Weidong Zhan, Yue Wang, Nan Hu, Liming Xiao, Jingyuan Ma, Yuhang Qin, Zheng Li, Yixin Yang, Sirui Deng, Jinkun Ding, Wenhan Ma, Rui Li, Weilin Luo, Qun Liu, Zhifang Sui,
• Abstract summary: We introduce SCoRE (Scenario-based Commonsense Reasoning Evaluation), a benchmark that synthesizes multi-hop questions from scenario schemas of entities, relations, and logical rules.<n>SCoRE contains 100k bilingual (Chinese-English) multiple-choice questions whose reasoning chains span 2-11 hops and are grouped into various difficulty levels.
• Score: 33.72114830484246
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Currently, long-chain reasoning remains a key challenge for large language models (LLMs) because natural texts lack sufficient explicit reasoning data. However, existing benchmarks suffer from limitations such as narrow coverage, short reasoning paths, or high construction costs. We introduce SCoRE (Scenario-based Commonsense Reasoning Evaluation), a benchmark that synthesizes multi-hop questions from scenario schemas of entities, relations, and logical rules to assess long-chain commonsense reasoning. SCoRE contains 100k bilingual (Chinese-English) multiple-choice questions whose reasoning chains span 2-11 hops and are grouped into various difficulty levels. Each question is accompanied by fine-grained knowledge labels, explicit reasoning chains, and difficulty levels for diagnostic evaluation. Evaluation results on cutting-edge LLMs such as o3-mini and Deepseek R1 shows that even the best model attains only 69.78% accuracy on SCoRE (even only 47.91% on the hard set), with errors often stemming from rare knowledge, logical inconsistency, and over-interpretation of simple questions. SCoRE offers a scalable, extensible framework for evaluating and diagnosing the long-chain commonsense reasoning abilities of LLMs and guiding future advances in model design and training.

Related papers

• MMReason: An Open-Ended Multi-Modal Multi-Step Reasoning Benchmark for MLLMs Toward AGI [59.196131618912005]
  Reasoning plays a crucial role in advancing Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs)<n>Existing MLLM benchmarks often fall short in precisely and comprehensively evaluating long-chain reasoning abilities.<n>We introduce MMReason, a new benchmark designed to precisely and comprehensively evaluate MLLM long-chain reasoning capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T07:14:38Z)
• Reasoning Capabilities and Invariability of Large Language Models [49.23570751696334]
  We aim to provide a comprehensive analysis of Large Language Models' reasoning competence.<n>We introduce a new benchmark dataset with a series of simple reasoning questions demanding shallow logical reasoning.<n>An empirical analysis involving zero-shot and few-shot prompting across 24 LLMs of different sizes reveals that, while LLMs with over 70 billion parameters perform better in the zero-shot setting, there is still a large room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-01T18:12:30Z)
• Towards Quantifying Commonsense Reasoning with Mechanistic Insights [7.124379028448955]
  We argue that a proxy of commonsense reasoning can be maintained as a graphical structure. We create an annotation scheme for capturing this implicit knowledge in the form of a graphical structure for 37 daily human activities. We find that the created resource can be used to frame an enormous number of commonsense queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-14T10:21:59Z)
• Short-Path Prompting in LLMs: Analyzing Reasoning Instability and Solutions for Robust Performance [33.16322104912836]
  Large language models' (LLMs) reasoning is largely due to the chain-of-thought (CoT) approaches.<n>LLMs are instruction-tuned to provide long and detailed CoT pathways when responding to reasoning-related questions.<n>Human beings are naturally cognitive misers and will prompt language models to give rather short responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-13T14:12:14Z)
• MDK12-Bench: A Multi-Discipline Benchmark for Evaluating Reasoning in Multimodal Large Language Models [50.43793764203352]
  We introduce MDK12-Bench, a multi-disciplinary benchmark assessing the reasoning capabilities of MLLMs via real-world K-12 examinations.<n>Our benchmark comprises 140K reasoning instances across diverse difficulty levels from primary school to 12th grade.<n>It features 6,827 instance-level knowledge point annotations based on a well-organized knowledge structure, detailed answer explanations, difficulty labels and cross-year partitions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-08T08:06:53Z)
• MIR-Bench: Can Your LLM Recognize Complicated Patterns via Many-Shot In-Context Reasoning? [21.056519816264505]
  We propose MIR-Bench, the first many-shot in-context reasoning benchmark for pattern recognition.<n>We study many novel problems for many-shot in-context reasoning, and acquired many insightful findings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-14T06:05:12Z)
• LongReason: A Synthetic Long-Context Reasoning Benchmark via Context Expansion [20.293369733522983]
  LongReason is a synthetic benchmark for evaluating the long-context reasoning capabilities of large language models.<n>LongReason consists of 794 multiple-choice reasoning questions with diverse reasoning patterns across three task categories.<n>We evaluate 21 LLMs on LongReason, revealing that most models experience significant performance drops as context length increases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-25T05:32:14Z)
• JustLogic: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Deductive Reasoning in Large Language Models [51.99046112135311]
  We introduce JustLogic, a synthetically generated deductive reasoning benchmark for rigorous evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>JustLogic is highly complex, capable of generating a diverse range of linguistic patterns, vocabulary, and argument structures.<n>Our experimental results reveal that (i) state-of-the-art (SOTA) reasoning LLMs perform on par or better than the human average but significantly worse than the human ceiling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T15:49:10Z)
• CLR-Fact: Evaluating the Complex Logical Reasoning Capability of Large Language Models over Factual Knowledge [44.59258397967782]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across various natural language processing tasks. We present a systematic evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs' complex logical reasoning abilities. We find that LLMs excel at reasoning over general world knowledge but face significant challenges with specialized domain-specific knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-30T05:40:32Z)
• RUPBench: Benchmarking Reasoning Under Perturbations for Robustness Evaluation in Large Language Models [12.112914393948415]
  We present RUPBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) across diverse reasoning tasks. Our benchmark incorporates 15 reasoning datasets, categorized into commonsense, arithmetic, logical, and knowledge-intensive reasoning. By examining the performance of state-of-the-art LLMs such as GPT-4o, Llama3, Phi-3, and Gemma on both original and perturbed datasets, we provide a detailed analysis of their robustness and error patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T17:26:44Z)
• CLAMBER: A Benchmark of Identifying and Clarifying Ambiguous Information Needs in Large Language Models [60.59638232596912]
  We introduce CLAMBER, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) Building upon the taxonomy, we construct 12K high-quality data to assess the strengths, weaknesses, and potential risks of various off-the-shelf LLMs. Our findings indicate the limited practical utility of current LLMs in identifying and clarifying ambiguous user queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-20T14:34:01Z)
• LogicBench: Towards Systematic Evaluation of Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models [52.03659714625452]
  Recently developed large language models (LLMs) have been shown to perform remarkably well on a wide range of language understanding tasks. But, can they really "reason" over the natural language? This question has been receiving significant research attention and many reasoning skills such as commonsense, numerical, and qualitative have been studied.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-23T21:08:49Z)
• CausalBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Causal Learning Capability of LLMs [27.362012903540492]
  The ability to understand causality significantly impacts the competence of large language models (LLMs) in output explanation and counterfactual reasoning. The ability to understand causality significantly impacts the competence of large language models (LLMs) in output explanation and counterfactual reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-09T14:40:08Z)
• Untangle the KNOT: Interweaving Conflicting Knowledge and Reasoning Skills in Large Language Models [51.72963030032491]
  Knowledge documents for large language models (LLMs) may conflict with the memory of LLMs due to outdated or incorrect knowledge. We construct a new dataset, dubbed KNOT, for knowledge conflict resolution examination in the form of question answering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T16:40:11Z)
• FAC$^2$E: Better Understanding Large Language Model Capabilities by Dissociating Language and Cognition [56.76951887823882]
  Large language models (LLMs) are primarily evaluated by overall performance on various text understanding and generation tasks. We present FAC$2$E, a framework for Fine-grAined and Cognition-grounded LLMs' Capability Evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T21:05:37Z)
• LogicAsker: Evaluating and Improving the Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models [63.14196038655506]
  We introduce LogicAsker, a novel approach for evaluating and enhancing the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) Our methodology reveals significant gaps in LLMs' learning of logical rules, with identified reasoning failures ranging from 29% to 90% across different models. We leverage these findings to construct targeted demonstration examples and fine-tune data, notably enhancing logical reasoning in models like GPT-4o by up to 5%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-01T13:53:53Z)
• LaRS: Latent Reasoning Skills for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [61.7853049843921]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting is a popular in-context learning approach for large language models (LLMs)<n>This paper introduces a new approach named Latent Reasoning Skills (LaRS) that employs unsupervised learning to create a latent space representation of rationales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-07T20:36:10Z)
• MuSR: Testing the Limits of Chain-of-thought with Multistep Soft Reasoning [63.80739044622555]
  We introduce MuSR, a dataset for evaluating language models on soft reasoning tasks specified in a natural language narrative. This dataset has two crucial features. First, it is created through a novel neurosymbolic synthetic-to-natural generation algorithm. Second, our dataset instances are free text narratives corresponding to real-world domains of reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T17:59:20Z)
• Improving Large Language Models in Event Relation Logical Prediction [33.88499005859982]
  Event relation extraction is a challenging task that demands thorough semantic understanding and rigorous logical reasoning. In this paper, we conduct an in-depth investigation to systematically explore the capability of LLMs in understanding and applying event relation logic. Our study reveals that LLMs are not logically consistent reasoners, which results in their suboptimal performance on tasks that need rigorous reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T14:53:06Z)
• Towards LogiGLUE: A Brief Survey and A Benchmark for Analyzing Logical Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models [56.34029644009297]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to overcome various limitations of formal Knowledge Representation (KR) systems. LLMs excel most in abductive reasoning, followed by deductive reasoning, while they are least effective at inductive reasoning. We study single-task training, multi-task training, and "chain-of-thought" knowledge distillation fine-tuning technique to assess the performance of model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T01:00:50Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.