PotARCin: Multi-Dimensional Evaluation of Skill Acquisition in Abstract Reasoning Tasks

AI reasoning models have exceeded human performance on the ARC-AGI-1 benchmark, but does that mean state-of-the-art models have the underlying competence (humanlike abstract reasoning) that the benchmark was designed to test? Here we investigate the abstraction abilities of AI models using the closely related but simpler ConceptARC benchmark. Our evaluations vary input modality (textual vs. visual), use of external Python tools, and reasoning effort. Beyond output accuracy, we evaluate the natural-language rules that models generate to explain their solutions, enabling us to assess whether models recognize the abstractions that ConceptARC was designed to elicit. We show that the best models' rules are frequently based on less abstract, more domain-specific concepts, capturing intended abstractions considerably less often than humans. In the visual modality, AI models' output accuracy drops sharply; however, our rule-level analysis reveals that a substantial share of their rules capture intended abstractions, even as the models struggle to apply these concepts to generate correct solutions. In short, we show that using performance (accuracy) alone can substantially overestimate AI competence in textual modalities while underestimating it in visual modalities, an illustration of the risk of mistaking performance for competence.

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/

Endpoint accuracy on abstract-reasoning benchmarks does not reveal whether a language model has acquired a transferable rule or fit distribution-specific regularities. We study this distinction in small language models on the ARC-TGI benchmark, which organizes abstract grid transformations into controllable task families and supports resampling, spatial shifts, and cross-benchmark transfer. Across more than 1,000 runs, we profile decoder-only, encoder--decoder, and mixture-of-experts model families under supervised fine-tuning. We examine the efficiency and stability of skill acquisition, robustness beyond the training distribution, interactions with model family and task formulation, and layer-wise attention signatures that accompany behavioral differences. Substantial in-distribution accuracy is attainable, but acquisition is sensitive to optimization and unevenly distributed across task families. Performance deteriorates sharply outside the training distribution, including when the rule is retained but grid scale changes. Greater training-set depth and breadth yield uneven gains, while the effect of additional in-context examples depends on model family. Executable-rule induction also yields correct solutions not observed under direct grid generation. On selected tasks, attention diagnostics show distinct concentration and context-dependence profiles, but do not establish general causal mechanisms. Overall, abstract-reasoning scores are conditional on the model, adaptation regime, evaluation distribution, and response format.