Paper detail

Kinship Data Benchmark for Multi-hop Reasoning

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated on their ability to perform multi-hop reasoning, i.e., to combine multiple pieces of information into a coherent inference. We introduce KinshipQA, a benchmark designed to probe this capability through reasoning over kinship relations. The central contribution of our work is a generative pipeline that produces, on demand, large-scale, realistic, and culture-specific genealogical data: collections of interconnected family trees that satisfy explicit marriage constraints associated with different kinship systems. This allows task difficulty, cultural assumptions, and relational depth to be systematically controlled and varied. From these genealogies, we derive textual inference tasks that require reasoning over implicit relational chains. We evaluate the resulting benchmark using six state-of-the-art LLMs, spanning both open-source and closed-source models, under a uniform zero-shot protocol with deterministic decoding. Performance is measured using exact-match and set-based metrics. Our results demonstrate that KinshipQA yields a wide spread of outcomes and exposes systematic differences in multi-hop reasoning across models and cultural settings.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.