Think 360°: Evaluating the Width-centric Reasoning Capability of MLLMs Beyond Depth

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.

We introduce the Complexity Ceiling Benchmark (CCB), a controlled evaluation of how language-model reasoning decays as the number of required sequential steps grows. CCB fixes the semantic content of a task and varies only its depth N in {5,...,50} across three structurally distinct regimes: grounded spatial state-tracking, abstract symbolic pointer manipulation, and transitive relational inference. Across 6,000 trials over five frontier and open-weight LLMs we find a consistent pattern of geometric per-step decay with widely separated domain ceilings: on the first two regimes the strongest models retain pd>0.92 across N=50; on the third every model collapses by N=5, with the best model's 50%-success horizon at H0.5~4.7 steps despite pd=0.863. A trace-level metric (TFBC) shows that 14.5% of correct answers across the benchmark are reached via incorrect intermediate reasoning. Forced verbose state-tracking does not move the ceiling (McNemar p=1.000), and the mean step at which reasoning first diverges, k*, predicts within-domain accuracy better than parameter count. CCB and the geometric decay model together reduce a model's long-horizon reasoning profile to one interpretable number per task family.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capabilities by scaling test-time compute via long Chain-of-Thought (CoT). However, recent findings suggest that raw token counts are unreliable proxies for reasoning quality: increased generation length does not consistently correlate with accuracy and may instead signal "overthinking," leading to performance degradation. In this work, we quantify inference-time effort by identifying deep-thinking tokens -- tokens where internal predictions undergo significant revisions in deeper model layers prior to convergence. Across four challenging mathematical and scientific benchmarks (AIME 24/25, HMMT 25, and GPQA-diamond) and a diverse set of reasoning-focused models (GPT-OSS, DeepSeek-R1, and Qwen3), we show that deep-thinking ratio (the proportion of deep-thinking tokens in a generated sequence) exhibits a robust and consistently positive correlation with accuracy, substantially outperforming both length-based and confidence-based baselines. Leveraging this insight, we introduce Think@n, a test-time scaling strategy that prioritizes samples with high deep-thinking ratios. We demonstrate that Think@n matches or exceeds standard self-consistency performance while significantly reducing inference costs by enabling the early rejection of unpromising generations based on short prefixes.