From Reasoning Depth to Reasoning Breadth: Evaluating Multi-Point Associative Reasoning in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.10444v2
• Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 07:17:25 GMT
• Title: From Reasoning Depth to Reasoning Breadth: Evaluating Multi-Point Associative Reasoning in Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: We introduce MPAR-Bench, a benchmark that isolates reasoning breadth through multi-point associative reasoning.<n>We construct 1,000 items using a multi-agent clue-generation pipeline, embedding-based diversity filtering, and human verification.<n>We evaluate models using accuracy, ANLS, embedding similarity, reasoning-trace verification, and four perturbations: clue masking, order shuffling, distractor injection, and multi-step clues.
• Score: 18.240441114446607
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have made substantial progress on reasoning tasks that require increasingly long and complex inferential chains. This progress primarily reflects reasoning depth. A complementary and comparatively unexamined capability is reasoning breadth: exploring multiple semantic directions in parallel and integrating the resulting clues into one coherent answer. We introduce MPAR-Bench, a bilingual English-Chinese benchmark that isolates reasoning breadth through multi-point associative reasoning. Inspired by the cooperative game Just One, each item asks a model to recover a hidden target from several independently generated, semantically diverse clues. We construct 1,000 items using a multi-agent clue-generation pipeline, embedding-based diversity filtering, and human verification. Only the answer space is drawn from public word lists, whereas every clue set is generated from scratch. Beyond exact-match accuracy, we evaluate models using accuracy, ANLS, embedding similarity, reasoning-trace verification, and four perturbations: clue masking, order shuffling, distractor injection, and multi-step clues. Across evaluated models, perturbations reduce accuracy by 9-18 percentage points in English and 5-12 percentage points in Chinese. Thinking mode improves standard-setting accuracy, especially in English, but does not consistently reduce sensitivity to perturbations. Case-level analysis also shows that extended reasoning can overturn an initially correct hypothesis. These results indicate that greater reasoning depth does not automatically confer robust reasoning breadth, and that reasoning breadth remains largely uncovered by current benchmarks.

Related papers

• MUX: Continuous Reasoning via Multiplexed Tokens [17.62611996930725]
  Language models solve complex problems by articulating intermediate reasoning steps in natural language.<n>We propose MUX, a simple method for high-bandwidth and compact reasoning based on distillation of discrete reasoning into continuous multiplexed tokens in a latent space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T10:30:32Z)
• What Makes Good Multilingual Reasoning? Disentangling Reasoning Traces with Measurable Features [32.31269959716733]
  This work asks what actually characterizes effective reasoning in multilingual settings.<n>We first define a suite of measurable reasoning features spanning multilingual alignment, reasoning step, and reasoning flow aspects of reasoning traces.<n>We then train sparse autoencoders over multilingual traces to automatically discover latent reasoning concepts that instantiate or extend these features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-06T14:40:50Z)
• CrossCheck-Bench: Diagnosing Compositional Failures in Multimodal Conflict Resolution [20.823419395675412]
  CrossCheck-Bench is a diagnostic benchmark for evaluating contradiction detection in multimodal inputs.<n>We evaluate 13 state-of-the-art vision-language models and observe a consistent performance drop as tasks shift from perceptual matching to logical contradiction detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-19T12:17:15Z)
• Think Clearly: Improving Reasoning via Redundant Token Pruning [57.01254508252785]
  We show that deliberately removing redundancy in the reasoning process significantly improves performance.<n>We demonstrate that our method significantly improves overall accuracy across reasoning-intensive benchmarks without any training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-17T06:04:01Z)
• PixelThink: Towards Efficient Chain-of-Pixel Reasoning [70.32510083790069]
  PixelThink is a simple yet effective scheme that integrates externally estimated task difficulty and internally measured model uncertainty.<n>It learns to compress reasoning length in accordance with scene complexity and predictive confidence.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed approach improves both reasoning efficiency and overall segmentation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T17:55:49Z)
• Revisiting Overthinking in Long Chain-of-Thought from the Perspective of Self-Doubt [74.35891434097053]
  Reasoning Large Language Models (RLLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance on complex tasks.<n>They often exhibit overthinking -- performing unnecessary reasoning steps even after arriving at the correct answer.<n>We present a quantitative analysis of overthinking from the perspective of self-doubt.<n>We introduce a simple and effective prompting method to reduce the model's over-reliance on input questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T14:30:02Z)
• Beyond the Last Answer: Your Reasoning Trace Uncovers More than You Think [51.0691253204425]
  We analyze intermediate reasoning steps, termed subthoughts, to answer two questions: Does the final answer reliably represent the model's optimal conclusion?<n>Our approach involves segmenting a reasoning trace into sequential subthoughts based on linguistic cues.<n>We find that aggregating these answers by selecting the most frequent one (the mode) often yields significantly higher accuracy compared to relying solely on the answer derived from the original complete trace.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-29T12:39:07Z)
• Sketch-of-Thought: Efficient LLM Reasoning with Adaptive Cognitive-Inspired Sketching [64.74765550805024]
  Chain-of-Thought prompting elicits step-by-step problem solving, but often at the cost of excessive verbosity in intermediate outputs.<n>We propose Sketch-of-Thought (SoT), a prompting framework that integrates cognitively inspired reasoning paradigms with linguistic constraints.<n>SoT achieves token reductions of up to 84% with minimal accuracy loss across 18 reasoning datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T06:57:17Z)
• Complexity-Based Prompting for Multi-Step Reasoning [72.0057198610614]
  We study the task of prompting large-scale language models to perform multi-step reasoning. A central question is which reasoning examples make the most effective prompts. We propose complexity-based prompting, a simple and effective example selection scheme for multi-step reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-03T05:33:27Z)
• Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models [53.45015291520658]
  We explore a simple ensemble strategy, self-consistency, that significantly improves the reasoning accuracy of large language models. For arithmetic and commonsense reasoning benchmarks we find that self-consistency yields significant accuracy improvements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-21T17:48:52Z)

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.