seqBench: A Tunable Benchmark to Quantify Sequential Reasoning Limits of LLMs
Mohammad Ramezanali, Mo Vazifeh, Paolo Santi
Abstract
We introduce seqBench, a parametrized benchmark for probing sequential reasoning limits in Large Language Models (LLMs) through precise, multi-dimensional control over several key complexity dimensions. seqBench allows systematic variation of (1) the logical depth, defined as the number of sequential actions required to solve the task; (2) the number of backtracking steps along the optimal path, quantifying how often the agent must revisit prior states to satisfy deferred preconditions (e.g., retrieving a key after encountering a locked door); and (3) the noise ratio, defined as the ratio between supporting and distracting facts about the environment. Our evaluations on state-of-the-art LLMs reveal a universal failure pattern: accuracy collapses exponentially beyond a modelspecific logical depth. Unlike existing benchmarks, seqBench's fine-grained control facilitates targeted analyses of these reasoning failures, illuminating universal scaling laws and statistical limits, as detailed in this paper alongside its generation methodology and evaluation metrics. We find that even top-performing models systematically fail on seqBench's structured reasoning tasks despite minimal search complexity, underscoring key limitations in their commonsense reasoning capabilities. Designed for future evolution to keep pace with advancing models, the seqBench datasets are publicly released to spur deeper scientific inquiry into LLM reasoning, aiming to establish a clearer understanding of their true potential and current boundaries for robust real-world application.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 461414f8-281c-4b57-9c81-21fa62e182efCited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on10
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Large Language Models are Zero-Shot ReasonersTakeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 8,168 citations
- Measuring Massive Multitask Language UnderstandingDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou et al.ICLR 2021 · 7,905 citations
- The Reversal Curse: LLMs trained on "A is B" fail to learn "B is A"Lukas Berglund, Meg Tong, Maximilian Kaufmann, Mikita Balesni et al.ICLR 2024 · 462 citations
Related papers
- SATBench: Benchmarking LLMs' Logical Reasoning via Automated Puzzle Generation from SAT FormulasAnjiang Wei, Yuheng Wu, Yingjia Wan, Tarun Suresh et al.EMNLP 2025 · 1 citation
- Can LLMs Reason Structurally? Benchmarking via the lens of Data StructuresYu He, Yingxi Li, Colin White, Ellen VitercikICML 2026 · 3 citations
- From Passive to Active Reasoning: Can Large Language Models Ask the Right Questions under Incomplete Information?Zhanke Zhou, Xiao Feng, Zhaocheng Zhu, Jiangchao Yao et al.ICML 2025
- Evaluating Relational Reasoning in LLMs with RELLukas Fesser, Yasha Ektefaie, Ada Fang, Sham Kakade et al.ICML 2026
- LogiConBench: Benchmarking Logical Consistencies of LLMsZheng Chen, Chuan Zhou, Fengxiang Cheng, Tin Po Yip et al.ICLR 2026
