Back to AI News
arxiv

Rel-Bloom: Multilingual Benchmark Reveals LLM Reasoning Gaps over Supplied Relational Facts

This paper introduces Rel-Bloom, a controlled multilingual diagnostic of 450 multiple-choice questions built from 30 Wikidata relations, testing evidence-conditioned relational reasoning across five Bloom-inspired levels and three veracity conditions. Across 43 models, six languages, and 226,800 predictions, it finds sharp accuracy drops from Apply to Analyze in open-weight models, persistent bottlenecks on Evaluate items even for strong models, and cross-language consistency in difficulty rankings. The results show that greater model capability does not guarantee reliable reasoning over supplied relational evidence.

AI Brief

Provides concrete, recent benchmark results and insights into LLM reasoning limitations over non-parametric memory, valuable for model evaluation and development.

arXiv:2611.06715v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) assumes that language models can reason over relations stated in their context rather than fall back on associations memorized during pretraining. We study this evidence-conditioned relational reasoning in isolation, with the facts supplied directly in the prompt rather than retrieved. \textsc{Rel-Bloom} is a controlled multilingual diagnostic of 450 multiple-choice questions built from 30 Wikidata relations; the same source relations are instantiated at five Bloom-inspired levels (Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate) and under three veracity conditions (Factual, Counterfactual, Neutralized). Across 43 models, six languages, and two multilingual settings (226,800 predictions), three findings stand out. First, accuracy drops sharply from Apply to Analyze in every evaluated open-weight model series, reaching 47.2 percentage points for the Large Granite bucket, but not for either Gemini model. Second, Evaluate items remain a bottleneck even for models near ceiling on the other task types: Gemini~3.1 Pro averages 99.5\% on the other four levels but 60.7\% on Evaluate. Third, item- and relation-level difficulty rankings are consistently preserved across languages, indicating a difficulty structure partly shared across languages within this benchmark. Across knowledge conditions, Counterfactual contexts are generally harder than Factual ones, while removing entity identities can improve higher-level performance in some model regimes. Greater model capability therefore does not by itself ensure reliable reasoning over supplied relational evidence. Relevant resources are available at: https://huggingface.co/spaces/QCRI/non-parametric-memory-relational-reasoning.
Be the first to rate this article.

Comments & Questions (0)

Captcha
Please be respectful — let's keep the conversation friendly.

No comments yet

Be the first to comment!