seqBench: A Tunable Benchmark to Quantify Sequential Reasoning Limits of LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.16866v1
• Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2025 01:32:13 GMT
• Title: seqBench: A Tunable Benchmark to Quantify Sequential Reasoning Limits of LLMs
• Authors: Mohammad Ramezanali, Mo Vazifeh, Paolo Santi,
• Abstract summary: We introduce seqBench, a benchmark for probing sequential reasoning limits in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We find that even top-performing models systematically fail on seqBench's structured reasoning tasks despite minimal search complexity.
• Score: 1.0519693622157462
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We introduce seqBench, a parametrized benchmark for probing sequential reasoning limits in Large Language Models (LLMs) through precise, multi-dimensional control over several key complexity dimensions. seqBench allows systematic variation of (1) the logical depth, defined as the number of sequential actions required to solve the task; (2) the number of backtracking steps along the optimal path, quantifying how often the agent must revisit prior states to satisfy deferred preconditions (e.g., retrieving a key after encountering a locked door); and (3) the noise ratio, defined as the ratio between supporting and distracting facts about the environment. Our evaluations on state-of-the-art LLMs reveal a universal failure pattern: accuracy collapses exponentially beyond a model-specific logical depth. Unlike existing benchmarks, seqBench's fine-grained control facilitates targeted analyses of these reasoning failures, illuminating universal scaling laws and statistical limits, as detailed in this paper alongside its generation methodology and evaluation metrics. We find that even top-performing models systematically fail on seqBench's structured reasoning tasks despite minimal search complexity, underscoring key limitations in their commonsense reasoning capabilities. Designed for future evolution to keep pace with advancing models, the seqBench datasets are publicly released to spur deeper scientific inquiry into LLM reasoning, aiming to establish a clearer understanding of their true potential and current boundaries for robust real-world application.

Related papers

• Reasoning with Confidence: Efficient Verification of LLM Reasoning Steps via Uncertainty Heads [104.9566359759396]
  We propose a lightweight alternative for step-level reasoning verification based on data-driven uncertainty scores.<n>Our findings suggest that the internal states of LLMs encode their uncertainty and can serve as reliable signals for reasoning verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-09T03:38:29Z)
• A Fano-Style Accuracy Upper Bound for LLM Single-Pass Reasoning in Multi-Hop QA [65.38186593873313]
  Multi-Hop Question Answering (MHQA) requires integrating dispersed, interdependent evidence through sequential reasoning under noise.<n>We introduce a proof-of-concept multi-call framework for MHQA, InfoQA.<n>We construct a stringent and noise-rich benchmark to validate our theory and framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T14:11:57Z)
• Quantization Meets dLLMs: A Systematic Study of Post-training Quantization for Diffusion LLMs [78.09559830840595]
  We present the first systematic study on quantizing diffusion-based language models.<n>We identify the presence of activation outliers, characterized by abnormally large activation values.<n>We implement state-of-the-art PTQ methods and conduct a comprehensive evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-20T17:59:51Z)
• STEPWISE-CODEX-Bench: Evaluating Complex Multi-Function Comprehension and Fine-Grained Execution Reasoning [6.282781900938977]
  We present STEPWISE-CODEX-Bench (SX-Bench), a novel benchmark for complex multi-function understanding and fine-grained execution reasoning.<n>SX-Bench is highly discriminative, even the state-of-the-art OpenAI-O3 achieves only 78.37 percent accuracy on Hard-Reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-07T09:28:43Z)
• The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity [16.266145641151375]
  Large Reasoning Models generate detailed thinking processes before providing answers.<n>We show that LRMs face a complete accuracy collapse beyond certain complexities.<n>We also investigate the reasoning traces in more depth, studying the patterns of explored solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-07T22:42:29Z)
• TurnBench-MS: A Benchmark for Evaluating Multi-Turn, Multi-Step Reasoning in Large Language Models [5.6525926183880255]
  We introduce TurnBench, a novel benchmark that evaluates multi-turn, multi-step reasoning through an interactive code-breaking task.<n>In each episode, a model must uncover hidden logical or arithmetic rules by making sequential guesses, receiving structured feedback, and integrating clues across multiple rounds.<n>TurnBench includes two modes: Classic, which tests standard reasoning, and Nightmare, which introduces increased complexity and requires robust inferential chains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T05:47:50Z)
• ZebraLogic: On the Scaling Limits of LLMs for Logical Reasoning [92.76959707441954]
  We introduce ZebraLogic, a comprehensive evaluation framework for assessing LLM reasoning performance.<n>ZebraLogic enables the generation of puzzles with controllable and quantifiable complexity.<n>Our results reveal a significant decline in accuracy as problem complexity grows.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T06:44:49Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• DetermLR: Augmenting LLM-based Logical Reasoning from Indeterminacy to Determinacy [76.58614128865652]
  We propose DetermLR, a novel perspective that rethinks the reasoning process as an evolution from indeterminacy to determinacy. First, we categorize known conditions into two types: determinate and indeterminate premises This provides an oveall direction for the reasoning process and guides LLMs in converting indeterminate data into progressively determinate insights. We automate the storage and extraction of available premises and reasoning paths with reasoning memory, preserving historical reasoning details for subsequent reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T10:05:51Z)

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.