Multi-Perspective Transformers in ARC-AGI-2 Challenge

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.

Vision-Language(-Action) Models (VLMs) are increasingly applied to interactive environments, yet existing benchmarks often overlook the complex physical reasoning required for point-and-click puzzle games. This paper introduces Vision-Language Against The Incredible Machine (VLATIM), a benchmark designed to evaluate human-like logical problem-solving capabilities within the classic physics puzzle game The Incredible Machine 2 (TIM). Unlike existing benchmarks, VLATIM specifically targets the critical gap between high-level logical reasoning and continuous action spaces requiring precise mouse interactions. This benchmark is structured into five progressive parts, assessing capabilities that range from basic visual grounding and domain understanding to multi-step manipulation and full puzzle solving. Our results reveal a significant disparity between reasoning and execution. While large proprietary models demonstrate superior planning abilities, they struggle with precise visual grounding. Consequently, they do not yet show human-like problem-solving capabilities.

Jigsaw puzzle solving requires jointly reasoning about visual content and geometric constraints, yet existing benchmarks use rectangular cuts that create ambiguous ground truth in texture-repeated regions. We introduce \textit{\ours{}}, a benchmark with tab-and-blank interlocking pieces where geometric constraints provide strong local compatibility requirements that, combined with visual content, yield unambiguous ground truth. Across 95K instances at four grid densities (4$\times$4 to 16$\times$16), we find that \textbf{zero-shot VLMs largely lack geometric reasoning}: only one of five frontier models (GPT-5.5) exceeds random baseline on 4$\times$4 puzzles, while all others perform at chance level. While supervised fine-tuning achieves $>$97% on 4$\times$4, \textbf{all models collapse on larger grids}: GPT-5.5 drops from 70% to near-random on 8$\times$8, and even fine-tuned models fall below 5% on 12$\times$12. This ``scaling cliff'' suggests current architectures cannot maintain consistent constraint satisfaction as the number of pieces increases. \ours{} establishes scalable geometric reasoning as an open challenge for vision-language models.