Distinguishing Performance From Competence in Evaluations of Humanlike Abstract Reasoning

The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) has become a prominent benchmark for evaluating general abstract reasoning and fluid intelligence in AI models. Yet standard ARC evaluation considers only a single capability: producing the correct output grid for a test input. We argue that this narrow format fails to evaluate the diversity of abilities that genuine abstract skill acquisition should enable. We introduce PotARCin, a benchmark that extends ARC by assessing understanding of a task's underlying abstract rule across five dimensions: Definition, Classification, Constrained Generation, Editing, and Inversion. PotARCin employs programmatic methods to generate new task instances and transform given inputs for a given ARC task, enabling dynamic generative sampling beyond fixed input-output pairs. Across five state-of-the-art models evaluated on the ARC-AGI-1 training set, we observe a 25-52 percentage-point performance gap between standard ARC evaluation and evaluation on PotARCin, and find that multi-dimensional evaluation reorders models that standard accuracy ranks alike. We further investigate effects of generative sampling, difficulty of corruption types, and questions of self-consistency, showing that models frequently contradict their own formalized rule even where they have stated it correctly. We also introduce P-ARC, a held-out hand-crafted test set, on which models achieve 1-8% accuracy across all five dimensions, underscoring the importance of more holistic evaluations of abstract reasoning capabilities.

The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC-AGI) has become a key benchmark for fluid intelligence in AI. This survey presents the first cross-generation analysis of 82 approaches across three benchmark versions and the ARC Prize 2024-2025 competitions. Our central finding is that performance degradation across versions is consistent across all paradigms: program synthesis, neuro-symbolic, and neural approaches all exhibit 2-3x drops from ARC-AGI-1 to ARC-AGI-2, indicating fundamental limitations in compositional generalization. While systems now reach 93.0% on ARC-AGI-1 (Opus 4.6), performance falls to 68.8% on ARC-AGI-2 and 13% on ARC-AGI-3, as humans maintain near-perfect accuracy across all versions. Cost fell 390x in one year (o3's $4,500/task to GPT-5.2's$12/task), although this largely reflects reduced test-time parallelism. Trillion-scale models vary widely in score and cost, while Kaggle-constrained entries (660M-8B) achieve competitive results, aligning with Chollet's thesis that intelligence is skill-acquisition efficiency. Test-time adaptation and refinement loops emerge as critical success factors, while compositional reasoning and interactive learning remain unsolved. ARC Prize 2025 winners needed hundreds of thousands of synthetic examples to reach 24% on ARC-AGI-2, confirming that reasoning remains knowledge-bound. This first release of the ARC-AGI Living Survey captures the field as of February 2026, with updates at https://nimi-ai.com/arc-survey/

Large language models can produce fluent, internally coherent reasoning traces for abstract reasoning tasks while still being confidently wrong - making selection among candidates, not just generation, the central challenge. I present a solver for ARC-AGI-2, a few-shot visual reasoning benchmark, built around two principles: (i) treating reasoning modalities as search operators, generating diverse candidates independently across text, image, and code channels, and (ii) context-preserving holistic judging, in which a judge model jointly compares all candidate reasoning traces within a single long-context prompt. Unlike self-consistency or majority voting, this approach reliably recovers correct minority hypotheses on tasks where the modal answer is wrong. On the ARC Prize semi-private evaluation set, the solver achieves 72.9 percent at USD 38.99 per task - the highest score on the verified leaderboard at the time of writing, exceeding the best standalone frontier models, GPT-5.2 Pro at 54.2 percent and Gemini 3 Pro at 54.0 percent, by +18.7 percentage points. On the public evaluation set, it achieves 76.1 percent at USD 19.69 per task. I release the full source code and document extensive negative results, including the finding that prescriptive prompting templates and iterative refinement systematically reduce hypothesis diversity and degrade performance.