Kinship Data Benchmark for Multi-hop Reasoning
-cross Abstract: Multi-hop kinship reasoning is a natural testbed for LLM compositionality, but existing benchmarks (notably CLUTRR) cover only the…
Arxiv 2 versions
-
1 new sentence, beginning: “Multi-hop kinship reasoning is a natural testbed for LLM compositionality, but existing benchmarks (notably CLUTRR) cover only…”
Kinship Data Benchmark for Multi-hop Reasoning
Multi-hop kinship reasoning is a natural testbed for LLM compositionality, but existing benchmarks (notably CLUTRR) cover only the descriptive Eskimo system. We introduce KinshipQA, a procedurally-generated benchmark covering seven anthropologically-documented kinship systems (Eskimo, Sudanese, Hawaiian, Iroquois, Dravidian, Crow, Omaha) and up to six reasoning hops, with a tunable simulator horizon that eliminates exact-instance pretraining overlap. Evaluating six LLMs, we find a 40.9% accuracy drop when reasoning shifts from biological multi-hop to culturally-marked classification on the five non-descriptive systems. The drop holds for every non-descriptive system and is largest for the two skewing systems (Crow, Omaha), persists under chain-of-thought and few-shot prompting, and compounds with depth: at 5--6 hops cultural override falls to 10.6% while biological composition over the same chains remains at 58.6%. Under identical rule access humans reach 89.0% versus 50.7% for LLMs, so the questions are reliably solvable once the rule is supplied. Two follow-up experiments suggest distinct contributors. A fictional-rule control swapping system labels and kin terms for invented strings raises accuracy by 6.1%, implicating familiar English surface forms. An in-context-rule probe prepending the override rule helps skewing systems (+17.1%) but hurts non-skewing systems whose baseline already exceeds about 60% (-13.4%), consistent with a missing skewing prior alongside rule interference where the model already has a working approximation. Our code and data are publicly available on GitHub.
-
Kinship Data Benchmark for Multi-hop Reasoning
-cross Abstract: Multi-hop kinship reasoning is a natural testbed for LLM compositionality, but existing benchmarks (notably CLUTRR) cover only the descriptive Eskimo system. We introduce KinshipQA, a procedurally-generated benchmark covering seven anthropologically-documented kinship systems (Eskimo, Sudanese, Hawaiian, Iroquois, Dravidian, Crow, Omaha) and up to six reasoning hops, with a tunable simulator horizon that eliminates exact-instance pretraining overlap. Evaluating six LLMs, we find a 40.9% accuracy drop when reasoning shifts from biological multi-hop to culturally-marked classification on the five non-descriptive systems. The drop holds for every non-descriptive system and is largest for the two skewing systems (Crow, Omaha), persists under chain-of-thought and few-shot prompting, and compounds with depth: at 5--6 hops cultural override falls to 10.6% while biological composition over the same chains remains at 58.6%. Under identical rule access humans reach 89.0% versus 50.7% for LLMs, so the questions are reliably solvable once the rule is supplied. Two follow-up experiments suggest distinct contributors. A fictional-rule control swapping system labels and kin terms for invented strings raises accuracy by 6.1%, implicating familiar English surface forms. An in-context-rule probe prepending the override rule helps skewing systems (+17.1%) but hurts non-skewing systems whose baseline already exceeds about 60% (-13.4%), consistent with a missing skewing prior alongside rule interference where the model already has a working approximation. Our code and data are publicly available on GitHub.
Versions are compared on the headline and summary the publisher puts in their feed. An edit to the body of an article that leaves both untouched will not appear here.
Why am I seeing this Ranked on source trust — arXiv
It ranks mainly on source trust: arXiv is the most reliable outlet we track on this subject, and is the only one on the story so far.
Link-outLink-out, because it did not clear the bar for a write-up. Link-out means we point at the publisher and say nothing of our own.
| Factor | Weight | Score | Contribution | Where it came from |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corroboration | 0.35 | 0.39 | +0.135 26% | 1 independent org on the story. Tier-3 aggregators never corroborate — they can show something is circulating, never that it is true. |
| Source trustleads | 0.25 | 0.85 | +0.212 41% | arXiv is the highest-trust source on this story and is first-party — the organisation announcing its own news. Trust is taken from the best source, not averaged. |
| Pickup rate | 0.20 | 0.00 | +0.000 0% | One counted organisation, so there is no spread to measure — nothing has picked this up to set a rate. |
| Freshness | 0.20 | 0.85 | +0.171 33% | Halves every 10 hours from the newest item on the story. This is the only factor that rewards a story for nothing more than being recent. |
Corroboration counts distinct organisations, once each, and only from tiers 1 and 2. Freshness halves every 10 hours, so this ranking is a snapshot and will differ at the next build.
What happened
-cross Abstract: Multi-hop kinship reasoning is a natural testbed for LLM compositionality, but existing benchmarks (notably CLUTRR) cover only the descriptive Eskimo system. We introduce KinshipQA, a procedurally-generated benchmark covering seven anthropologically-documented kinship systems (Eskimo, Sudanese, Hawaiian, Iroquois, Dravidian, Crow, Omaha) and up to six reasoning hops, with a tunable simulator horizon that eliminates exact-instance pretraining overlap. Evaluating six LLMs, we find a 40.9% accuracy drop when reasoning shifts from biological multi-hop to culturally-marked classification on the five non-descriptive systems.
How this story arrived
Ordered by when each source was first observed, which is what the velocity figure is computed from. Publishers backdate; observed order does not.
- 01 Arxivfirst-party first seen Kinship Data Benchmark for Multi-hop Reasoning
Overclock clusters coverage from independent sources and grades it automatically. The figures above are computed, not editorial. This page summarises and links to reporting by the outlets named — follow the links for the original work.