# WildTrace: Benchmarking Natural Evidence Trails in Long-Context Reasoning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.09328 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.09328/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 40 of its 42 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 10 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 40)

- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.09600/) (2018)
- [Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03172/) (2023)
- [Gemma 3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.19786/) (2025)
- [LongBench: A Bilingual, Multitask Benchmark for Long Context Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.14508/) (2023)
- [RULER: What's the Real Context Size of Your Long-Context Language Models?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.06654/) (2024)
- [Constructing A Multi-hop QA Dataset for Comprehensive Evaluation of Reasoning Steps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.01060/) (2020)
- [DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.19348/) (2026)
- [MuSiQue: Multihop Questions via Single-hop Question Composition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.00573/) (2021)
- [Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.01007/) (2019)
- [Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.02324/) (2018)
- [BrowseComp: A Simple Yet Challenging Benchmark for Browsing Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.12516/) (2025)
- [The NarrativeQA Reading Comprehension Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1712.07040/) (2017)
- [Enabling Large Language Models to Generate Text with Citations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14627/) (2023)
- [Terminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line Interfaces](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.11868/) (2026)
- [A Dataset of Information-Seeking Questions and Answers Anchored in Research Papers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.03011/) (2021)
- [LongBench v2: Towards Deeper Understanding and Reasoning on Realistic Long-context Multitasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15204/) (2024)
- [∞Bench: Extending Long Context Evaluation Beyond 100K Tokens](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.13718/) (2024)
- [Evaluating Verifiability in Generative Search Engines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.09848/) (2023)
- [DeepResearch Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Deep Research Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.11763/) (2025)
- [L-Eval: Instituting Standardized Evaluation for Long Context Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.11088/) (2023)
- [BABILong: Testing the Limits of LLMs with Long Context Reasoning-in-a-Haystack](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.10149/) (2024)
- [QuALITY: Question Answering with Long Input Texts, Yes!](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.08608/) (2021)
- [LooGLE: Can Long-Context Language Models Understand Long Contexts?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.04939/) (2023)
- [Leave No Context Behind: Efficient Infinite Context Transformers with Infini-attention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.07143/) (2024)
- [NoLiMa: Long-Context Evaluation Beyond Literal Matching](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.05167/) (2025)
- [HELMET: How to Evaluate Long-Context Language Models Effectively and Thoroughly](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02694/) (2024)
- [Leave No Document Behind: Benchmarking Long-Context LLMs with Extended Multi-Doc QA](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.17419/) (2024)
- [Compositional Questions Do Not Necessitate Multi-hop Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.02900/) (2019)
- [Understanding Dataset Design Choices for Multi-hop Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.12106/) (2019)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Answering complex questions over long documents frequently requires integrating evidence that the source itself disperses naturally across distant passages. In an incident report, the operating condition, design flaw, and missed safety check that jointly explain a disaster may appear dozens of sections apart; in a novel, a character's true motive may surface only through scenes far removed from the moment it becomes relevant. This source-internal evidence integration is central to real-world long-document analysis, yet existing benchmarks largely sidestep it. Needle probes, planted facts, and reverse-engineered multi-hop chains embed evidence that may differ from the host text in distribution, placement, or register, making it unclear whether strong performance reflects genuine source reasoning or distributional artifacts. We introduce WILDTRACE, a benchmark of 481 tasks over 214 naturally occurring long-form sources such as technical incident reports and lesser-known literary narratives, where all evidence trails arise from the document's own causal, temporal, and narrative logic. Drawing on Pearl's causal hierarchy and prior multi-hop reasoning typologies, we define seven source-internal evidence geometries that characterize the distinct relational demands of analytical reading in long documents. A source-first construction pipeline mines candidate trails from document structure before writing questions; each item then undergoes multi-stage validation covering clue necessity, answer groundedness, rubric fidelity, contamination resistance and answerability. As models are increasingly entrusted with real-world high-stakes analytical tasks, this gap between accessing information and reasoning over naturally dispersed evidence emerges as a defining challenge for the next stage of long-context research.