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.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into high-stakes decision-making. Inspired by the theory of \emph{inattentional blindness} in human cognition, we investigate whether LLMs, trained on human-preferred corpora that embed attentional biases, exhibit a similar limitation: \emph{failing to attend to subtle yet important contextual cues under explicit task instructions}. To evaluate this, we introduce the task of \textbf{explicit-implicit reasoning} and present \textbf{MixRea}, a benchmark of 2,246 multiple-choice questions across 9 reasoning types with varying distributions of explicit and implicit information. Evaluation of 21 advanced LLMs shows that even the best-performing reasoning model (Gemini 2.5 Pro) achieves only 42.8% consistency, revealing widespread inattentional blindness. To mitigate this, we propose \textbf{Potential Relation Completion Prompting (PRCP)}, a prompting method that improves reasoning by recovering overlooked causal relations. Further analysis shows that this limitation persists across diverse multi-source reasoning tasks, highlighting the need for more cognitively aligned models.
Large language models perform increasingly well on standardized logical reasoning benchmarks, but whether this ability remains robust beyond English is unclear. We introduce ChLogic, an English--Chinese aligned benchmark that tests whether models preserve logical reasoning performance when the same latent logical structure is expressed in English and diverse Chinese surface realizations. Built from formal logical templates, the benchmark contains three data sets: (i) the General aligned set, derived from 60 General Propositions across nine template families; (ii) the Difficult aligned set, derived from 40 Difficult Problems; and (iii) the Chinese-only set, covering 15 language-specific phenomenon types. Each aligned item pairs one English reference expression with five Chinese realizations. Experiments on Qwen3, Ministral, and GLM models reveal a persistent English--Chinese performance gap. Back-translation from standard Chinese into English often improves performance on the General aligned set, but produces mixed effects on the Difficult aligned set, where Qwen3-32B and GLM-5.1 perform worse after translation. These results indicate that Chinese surface realization, translation artifacts, and model-specific behavior jointly affect multilingual logical reasoning. Overall, ChLogic provides a useful stress test for the robustness of multilingual reasoning.
Characterizing LLM reasoning remains an open challenge, as many existing benchmarks isolate specific reasoning skills, rely on external knowledge, or are costly to extend. We introduce PetriBench, a compact, fully self-contained, and scalable benchmark for evaluating LLM reasoning over dynamic state spaces using Petri nets, a mature formalism for modeling real-world concurrent and distributed systems. PetriBench organizes reasoning into four task families varying by scope and temporal horizon, with Easy, Medium, and Hard levels generated by increasing structural complexity and evaluated against exact ground truth. Across a diverse set of proprietary and open-weight models, accuracy decreases consistently with difficulty, while harder instances expose increasingly distinct task-specific capability profiles. Additional analyses show that test-time compute improves performance but interacts differently with different reasoning tasks, and that procedural generation yields smooth scaling with structural complexity. Together, these results show that PetriBench provides a unified and extensible setting for probing the strengths, limits, and scaling behavior of LLM reasoning.