Skip to content
← Back to explorer

TopoBench: Benchmarking LLMs on Hard Topological Reasoning

Mayug Maniparambil, Nils Hoehing, Janak Kapuriya, Arjun Karuvally, Ellen Rushe, Anthony Ventresque, Noel O'Connor, Fergal Reid · Mar 12, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Solving topological grid puzzles requires reasoning over global spatial invariants such as connectivity, loop closure, and region symmetry and remains challenging for even the most powerful large language models (LLMs). To study these abilities under controlled settings, we introduce TopoBench, a benchmark of six puzzle families across three difficulty levels. We evaluate strong reasoning LLMs on TopoBench and find that even frontier models solve fewer than one quarter of hard instances, with two families nearly unsolved. To investigate whether these failures stem from reasoning limitations or from difficulty extracting and maintaining spatial constraints, we annotate 750 chain of thought traces with an error taxonomy that surfaces four candidate causal failure modes, then test them with targeted interventions simulating each error type. These interventions show that certain error patterns like premature commitment and constraint forgetting have a direct impact on the ability to solve the puzzle, while repeated reasoning is a benign effect of search. Finally we study mitigation strategies including prompt guidance, cell-aligned grid representations and tool-based constraint checking, finding that the bottleneck lies in extracting constraints from spatial representations and not in reasoning over them. Code and data are available at github.com/mayug/topobench-benchmark.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
  • The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 25%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Solving topological grid puzzles requires reasoning over global spatial invariants such as connectivity, loop closure, and region symmetry and remains challenging for even the most powerful large language models (LLMs)."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Solving topological grid puzzles requires reasoning over global spatial invariants such as connectivity, loop closure, and region symmetry and remains challenging for even the most powerful large language models (LLMs)."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Solving topological grid puzzles requires reasoning over global spatial invariants such as connectivity, loop closure, and region symmetry and remains challenging for even the most powerful large language models (LLMs)."

Benchmarks / Datasets

partial

Topobench

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"To study these abilities under controlled settings, we introduce TopoBench, a benchmark of six puzzle families across three difficulty levels."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Solving topological grid puzzles requires reasoning over global spatial invariants such as connectivity, loop closure, and region symmetry and remains challenging for even the most powerful large language models (LLMs)."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Coding

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

Topobench

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Solving topological grid puzzles requires reasoning over global spatial invariants such as connectivity, loop closure, and region symmetry and remains challenging for even the most powerful large language models (LLMs).

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Solving topological grid puzzles requires reasoning over global spatial invariants such as connectivity, loop closure, and region symmetry and remains challenging for even the most powerful large language models (LLMs).
  • To study these abilities under controlled settings, we introduce TopoBench, a benchmark of six puzzle families across three difficulty levels.
  • We evaluate strong reasoning LLMs on TopoBench and find that even frontier models solve fewer than one quarter of hard instances, with two families nearly unsolved.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • To study these abilities under controlled settings, we introduce TopoBench, a benchmark of six puzzle families across three difficulty levels.
  • We evaluate strong reasoning LLMs on TopoBench and find that even frontier models solve fewer than one quarter of hard instances, with two families nearly unsolved.
  • Code and data are available at github.com/mayug/topobench-benchmark.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • To study these abilities under controlled settings, we introduce TopoBench, a benchmark of six puzzle families across three difficulty levels.
  • Code and data are available at github.com/mayug/topobench-benchmark.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: Topobench

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.