Research on Generalization Ability of Large Language Models: Shortest Path Problem Reveals Reasoning Bottlenecks

Recent research systematically analyzes the generalization ability of LLMs in combinatorial optimization problems through shortest path planning tasks, finding that models perform well in spatial transfer but have recursive instability in long-range reasoning. This article discusses the controversial background of LLM generalization ability, the research design using shortest paths as a testbed, core findings, the role of each stage in the learning pipeline, practical implications, and future directions.

Whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can achieve systematic generalization has long been a topic of intense debate in academia. Although models like GPT-4 and Claude perform well in various benchmark tests, they often experience unexpected failures when encountering new problems outside the training distribution. This limitation in generalization ability directly affects the reliability of AI systems in practical applications. However, evaluating LLM generalization ability is not easy. The actual performance of models is influenced by multiple factors: the coverage of training data, the choice of training paradigms (pre-training, supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning), and strategies used during reasoning (such as chain-of-thought prompting, sampling temperature, etc.). These factors are intertwined, making it difficult to pinpoint the root cause by simply observing model failures.

To solve the problem of evaluating LLM generalization ability, a team from the National University of Singapore designed a controlled synthetic environment based on shortest path planning tasks. The advantages of choosing the shortest path problem are: first, as a classic combinatorial optimization problem, complex paths can be decomposed into simple subpaths, which is suitable for testing systematic reasoning ability; second, it supports two orthogonal generalization dimensions—spatial transfer (new map layouts) and length extension (longer paths), which can separate the influence of different factors.

Experimental results show that LLMs perform strongly in spatial transfer (can correctly plan paths of similar length in new layouts) but consistently fail in length extension. When the path length exceeds the training distribution, performance drops sharply. The reason is recursive instability: small early errors in the long-range reasoning chain are continuously amplified, leading to final errors.

Data coverage: Data diversity determines the upper limit of ability. If a certain path pattern is missing, it is difficult to demonstrate the corresponding ability during testing, emphasizing the importance of high-quality and diverse data. Reinforcement learning: Can improve training stability and reduce fluctuations, but cannot expand the ability boundary—only allows the model to exert existing abilities more reliably. Inference extension: Increasing computing resources (longer chain of thought, more sampling) can improve performance, but there is a ceiling and it cannot save the fundamental failure of length extension.

Guidance for practical applications of LLMs: Long-range reasoning tasks (complex mathematical proofs, multi-step planning) have inherent bottlenecks. Simply increasing model size or data is not sufficient. Future research directions: Develop reasoning architectures that explicitly maintain intermediate states and perform backtracking corrections; explore the collaborative mechanism between external tools (symbolic solvers) and LLMs; design training objectives for long-range reasoning stability.

The shortest path research provides a clear perspective for understanding LLM generalization ability, reveals the advantages and limitations of combinatorial reasoning, and points the way for building more robust AI systems. True systematic generalization requires improving reasoning mechanisms, not just relying on more parameters and data.