Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

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

Si'an Xie, Jiaxun Liu, Biao Yang, Wei Yuan, Fan Yang, Tingting Gao, Ming Wu · Aug 11, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics General Long Horizon Multi Agent
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Moderate trust

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

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

Evidence quality

Moderate

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

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.

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

A benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.

Main weakness

No major weakness surfaced.

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

25/100 • Low

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

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 55%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

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.

"Large language models (LLMs) have made substantial progress on reasoning tasks that require increasingly long and complex inferential chains."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Large language models (LLMs) have made substantial progress on reasoning tasks that require increasingly long and complex inferential chains."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Large language models (LLMs) have made substantial progress on reasoning tasks that require increasingly long and complex inferential chains."

Benchmarks / Datasets

strong

Mpar Bench

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"We introduce MPAR-Bench, a bilingual English-Chinese benchmark that isolates reasoning breadth through multi-point associative reasoning."

Reported Metrics

strong

Accuracy, Exact match

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"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."

Human Feedback Details

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

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: Long Horizon, Multi Agent
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Moderate
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

Mpar-Bench

Reported Metrics

accuracyexact match

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Large language models (LLMs) have made substantial progress on reasoning tasks that require increasingly long and complex inferential chains.

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

Key Takeaways

  • 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.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics, Long-horizon tasks) against the full paper.
  • 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

Accuracy

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We introduce MPAR-Bench, a bilingual English-Chinese benchmark that isolates reasoning breadth through multi-point associative reasoning.
  • We construct 1,000 items using a multi-agent clue-generation pipeline, embedding-based diversity filtering, and human verification.
  • 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.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We introduce MPAR-Bench, a bilingual English-Chinese benchmark that isolates reasoning breadth through multi-point associative reasoning.
  • We construct 1,000 items using a multi-agent clue-generation pipeline, embedding-based diversity filtering, and human verification.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: Mpar-Bench

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy, exact match

Related Papers

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