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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.10444 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.10444/

## 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 11 of its 53 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.08361/) (2020)
- [Qwen3 Embedding: Advancing Text Embedding and Reranking Through Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.05176/) (2025)
- [DeepSeek-V3.2: Pushing the Frontier of Open Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.02556/) (2025)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [Kimi K2: Open Agentic Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.20534/) (2025)
- [Stop Overthinking: A Survey on Efficient Reasoning for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.16419/) (2025)
- [CREATE: Testing LLMs for Associative Creativity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.09970/) (2026)
- [Modeling Associative Reasoning Processes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.00716/) (2022)
- [MM-OPERA: Benchmarking Open-ended Association Reasoning for Large Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.26937/) (2025)

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

- [Collaborative Learning and Reasoning over Model Slices](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.12927/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.