Construct multi-step reasoning benchmarks with interdependent problems to evaluate and improve long-horizon reasoning in large reasoning models. Enables evaluation of reasoning depth and breadth beyond single-step tasks.
Scanned 9/9/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add ADu2021/skillXiv --skill r-horizon --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of R Horizon?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/adu2021-r-horizon)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: r-horizon-long-horizon-reasoning
title: "R-Horizon: How Far Can Your Large Reasoning Model Really Go in Breadth and Depth?"
version: 0.0.2
engine: skillxiv-v0.0.2-claude-opus-4.6
license: MIT
url: "https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.08189"
keywords: [reasoning, benchmark, long-horizon, query-composition, large-reasoning-models]
description: "Construct multi-step reasoning benchmarks with interdependent problems to evaluate and improve long-horizon reasoning in large reasoning models. Enables evaluation of reasoning depth and breadth beyond single-step tasks."
---
# R-Horizon: Evaluating and Improving Long-Horizon Reasoning
Large reasoning models show surprising limitations in extended reasoning chains. Current benchmarks focus on single-horizon tasks, missing critical evaluation of how well models handle multi-step interdependent problems or allocate thinking across multiple sub-tasks.
R-Horizon addresses this by constructing reasoning tasks where multiple problems depend on each other, creating true long-horizon reasoning scenarios. This reveals whether models can sustain reasoning quality across deep chains or whether they degrade as reasoning depth increases.
## Core Concept
The framework constructs multi-step reasoning problems through **query composition**: building dependent sub-problems where solutions to earlier steps inform later steps. This naturally extends single-horizon reasoning benchmarks into long-horizon evaluation suites.
Key insight: models need to not only reason deeply but allocate their reasoning budget efficiently across multiple interconnected sub-problems.
## Architecture Overview
- **Query Composition Engine**: Takes base reasoning problems and creates dependency chains
- **Controlled Depth Variation**: Generate problems at varying reasoning depths to test breadth and depth separately
- **Reward Integration**: Connects with Reinforcement Learning with Verified Rewards (RLVR) for both evaluation and training
- **Benchmark Reusability**: Creates persistent evaluation benchmarks across multiple reasoning models
## Implementation Steps
The core workflow involves three stages: problem generation, composition, and evaluation.
**Stage 1: Base Problem Selection**
Start with high-quality reasoning problems. For mathematical reasoning, extract problems from benchmarks like AIME or Math competition datasets:
```python
# Load base reasoning problems
base_problems = load_benchmark_problems(
source='aime_2024',
difficulty='high'
)
# Filter for composability
composable = [
p for p in base_problems
if can_create_dependency(p)
]
```
**Stage 2: Dependency Graph Construction**
Create chains where problem N+1 depends on solution to problem N. Build a dependency graph that represents the reasoning structure:
```python
def create_composition_chain(problems, chain_length=5):
"""
Build a chain of problems where each depends on previous solution.
"""
chain = []
for i in range(chain_length):
base = problems[i]
if i == 0:
chain.append(base)
else:
# Modify problem to require solution from problem i-1
dependent = inject_dependency(base, chain[i-1])
chain.append(dependent)
return chain
# Create multiple chain depth levels
depth_3_chains = create_composition_chain(problems, chain_length=3)
depth_5_chains = create_composition_chain(problems, chain_length=5)
depth_8_chains = create_composition_chain(problems, chain_length=8)
```
**Stage 3: Evaluation with RLVR**
Evaluate models on composed problems and use results to train reasoning improvement:
```python
def evaluate_reasoning_chains(model, chains):
"""
Test model on multi-step reasoning chains.
Returns per-step accuracy to track reasoning degradation.
"""
results = {
'step_accuracy': [],
'chain_completion': 0,
'thinking_allocation': []
}
for chain in chains:
step_results = []
for step_idx, problem in enumerate(chain):
response = model.generate(
prompt=problem,
max_thinking_tokens=8000
)
is_correct = verify_solution(response)
step_results.append(is_correct)
results['step_accuracy'].append(step_results)
if all(step_results):
results['chain_completion'] += 1
return results
```
## Practical Guidance
**When to Use R-Horizon:**
- Evaluating whether large reasoning models truly handle long-horizon tasks
- Creating curriculum-based training where models progress from single to multi-step reasoning
- Identifying where reasoning models degrade in extended chains
**When NOT to Use:**
- Single-step problem solving where long-horizon complexity adds no value
- Domains without clear problem interdependencies (unrelated tasks)
**Hyperparameter Considerations:**
| Parameter | Typical Range | Guidance |
|-----------|---------------|----------|
| Chain Depth | 3-10 | Deeper chains reveal more limitations; 5-6 balances evaluation informativeness |
| Problem Difficulty | Easy to Hard | Mix difficulties to avoid ceiling/floor effects |
| Thinking Budget | 4000-16000 tokens | Allow sufficient reasoning tokens; 8000 is baseline |
| Composition Type | Sequential/Graph | Sequential most straightforward; graph captures realistic dependencies |
**Common Pitfalls:**
- Creating false dependencies that don't require genuine reasoning across steps
- Using problems that are too easy, masking actual reasoning limitations
- Insufficient thinking budget that prevents models from demonstrating capability
- Not validating intermediate solutions, missing cascading errors
## Reference
Based on the research at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.08189
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!