Multiple-choice and candidate-selection evaluations are widely used to assess LLM reasoning and decision-making, yet most benchmarks contain relatively small candidate sets. It remains unclear whether conclusions drawn from these settings remain valid as the candidate space scales. We systematically evaluate LLMs as the number of competing candidates increases and find substantial accuracy degradation across tasks, prompting strategies, and model scales. Controlled analyses show that standard long-context retrieval explanations cannot fully account for this degradation. Instead, we identify two systematic failure patterns. First, gold-margin collapse: the score gap between the correct answer and the strongest distractor progressively shrinks, driven primarily by weakening confidence in the correct answer. Second, earlier candidate preferences become increasingly difficult to overturn, with later candidates exerting progressively weaker influence on the final prediction. Motivated by these findings, we evaluate hierarchical partitioning and permutation-based inference, which improve accuracy by roughly 20 percentage points at $N=160$ on both HotpotQA and MIMIC. Overall, our results identify candidate-set scale as an important evaluation-protocol variable and show that strong small-option performance does not necessarily imply robust large-scale candidate comparison.

翻译：暂无翻译