# Evaluation Hallucination in Multi-Round Incomplete Information Lateral-Driven Reasoning Tasks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23843 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23843/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 20 of its 33 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 May 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 20 of 20)

- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Math-Shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.08935/) (2023)
- [LongBench v2: Towards Deeper Understanding and Reasoning on Realistic Long-context Multitasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15204/) (2024)
- [LLM Discussion: Enhancing the Creativity of Large Language Models via Discussion Framework and Role-Play](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.06373/) (2024)
- [LatEval: An Interactive LLMs Evaluation Benchmark with Incomplete Information from Lateral Thinking Puzzles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.10855/) (2023)
- [Probing the Creativity of Large Language Models: Can models produce divergent semantic association?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11158/) (2023)
- [MathChat: Benchmarking Mathematical Reasoning and Instruction Following in Multi-Turn Interactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.19444/) (2024)
- [IdeaBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Research Idea Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.02429/) (2024)
- [DetectiveQA: Evaluating Long-Context Reasoning on Detective Novels](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.02465/) (2024)
- [Beyond Prompts: Dynamic Conversational Benchmarking of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.20222/) (2024)
- [BRAINTEASER: Lateral Thinking Puzzles for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.05057/) (2023)
- [Lost in the Middle, and In-Between: Enhancing Language Models' Ability to Reason Over Long Contexts in Multi-Hop QA](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.10079/) (2024)
- [Derailer-Rerailer: Adaptive Verification for Efficient and Reliable Language Model Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.13940/) (2024)
- [Weak-eval-Strong: Evaluating and Eliciting Lateral Thinking of LLMs with Situation Puzzles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.06733/) (2024)
- [TextGames: Learning to Self-Play Text-Based Puzzle Games via Language Model Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.18431/) (2025)
- [TurtleBench: Evaluating Top Language Models via Real-World Yes/No Puzzles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05262/) (2024)
- [FSM: A Finite State Machine Based Zero-Shot Prompting Paradigm for Multi-Hop Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.02964/) (2024)
- [Unleashing Multi-Hop Reasoning Potential in Large Language Models through Repetition of Misordered Context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.07103/) (2024)
- [Solving Situation Puzzles with Large Language Model and External Reformulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18394/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [ZPD-SCA: Unveiling the Blind Spots of LLMs in Assessing Students' Cognitive Abilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.14377/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-round incomplete information tasks are crucial for evaluating the lateral thinking capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Currently, research primarily relies on multiple benchmarks and automated evaluation metrics to assess these abilities. However, our study reveals novel insights into the limitations of existing methods, as they often yield misleading results that fail to uncover key issues, such as shortcut-taking behaviors, rigid patterns, and premature task termination. These issues obscure the true reasoning capabilities of LLMs and undermine the reliability of evaluations. To address these limitations, we propose a refined set of evaluation standards, including inspection of reasoning paths, diversified assessment metrics, and comparative analyses with human performance.