Abstract Reasoning

Recursive reasoning models refine persistent internal states by repeatedly applying learned operators. We investigate whether adding a persistent intermediate state that integrates repeated updates of a faster state through the same operator improves predictive performance relative to each model family's baseline at matched parameter counts. We define this organisation operationally and implement it within three architectures: the Hierarchical Reasoning Model (HRM), Tiny Recursive Model (TRM) and Universal Reasoning Model (URM). Using the official codebases on ARC-AGI-1, we compare each baseline with its parameter-matched nested variant. We evaluate held-out queries from tasks whose demonstrations were available during training. The experiments use a single-GPU budget far below the published training protocols. Under the tested conditions, nested variants show no consistent advantage in token accuracy, predictive loss or exact solving, which remains near zero for all configurations. The results therefore leave the hypothesis open. We specify a confirmatory comparison, with an informative baseline, multiple seeds, controls that isolate nesting and predefined criteria, to determine whether this organisation merits further development.

The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) is increasingly used to evaluate whether neural networks can infer task-specific transformations from few demonstrations. Recent ARC models differ in architecture, but also in broader training and evaluation protocols, including pretraining data, data augmentation, test-time setup, and optimization budgets, making conclusions about architecture benefits debatable. In this work, we study how the performance of the vision-inspired VARC and recursion-based TRM models is affected by pretraining and test-time training (TTT) budgets under a common inductive protocol on ARC-AGI-1. We cross five pretraining budgets with four TTT budgets for each test task. Each budget specifies a task-variant count and total sample presentations, defining the controlled training budgets. We observe that increasing TTT sample presentations improves the standard ARC pass@2 metric in all settings for both models. Increasing the TTT task-variant count consistently helps only TRM, whereas VARC often performs better with fewer variants. VARC also remains competitive without pretraining, while TRM benefits much more from it. These results show that pretraining and TTT budgets affect ARC evaluation and motivate reporting at comparable budgets.

Recurrent models trained from scratch have recently become competitive on ARC-style reasoning tasks, but the usual framing around small recurrent backbones overlooks two important parts of the system: task-conditioned memory and synthetic augmentation data. We study this regime through CHARM, a compact hybrid ARC model that combines recurrent reasoning with structured task memory, synthetic data, and inference-time aggregation. In existing approaches, task-conditioned memory supplies a large hidden source of capacity, reaching more than 30x the size of the recurrent backbone. We introduce a compositional sparse embedding (CoSE) for task conditioning that reduces learned task-memory parameters by over 90% while improving pass@2 in controlled ARC ablations. For the recurrent backbone, recurrent depth helps only when balanced with learning horizon. Combining these ingredients, our system reaches 84% pass@2 on ARC-AGI-1 and 46.7% pass@2 on ARC-AGI-2 public evaluation. The benefits of structured memory also generalize to unseen puzzles and other domains. Our code, dataset, and model checkpoints are available at https://github.com/water-vapor/charm.

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.

We introduce BDH-CQ, a reasoning model that combines in-context learning with recurrent latent reasoning. Inputs presented at inference time continuously update the model's recurrent memory; the model then solves a query through iterative computation in a high-dimensional latent space, without verbalizing its intermediate reasoning. We evaluate the model on the public ARC-AGI-1 evaluation set and use controlled ARC-like interventions to study what it learns from demonstrations, how consistently it applies an inferred transformation, and which concepts remain difficult. A 150M-parameter configuration reaches 29.5% pass@2 at a computed inference cost of $0.0007 per task. This operating point breaks through the previously reported ARC-AGI-1 cost-accuracy Pareto frontier, establishing a new state of the art in benchmark cost efficiency.

Analogy allows models to apply relational knowledge from one situation to another. Benchmarks of equivalent representations test different ways of expressing the same underlying problem, whereas analogy often links situations involving different objects and content. To evaluate the analogy ability of models, we introduce GEB-Bench, a benchmark centered on cross-voice motif matching. A voice presents a motif as a scene, story, mathematical statement, or programmatic skeleton. The first task is identification across these voices. The second is matching scenes to stories or mathematical statements, and stories to mathematical statements, by their shared motif. A complete construction pipeline generates items in these voices from the relation specified for each motif, checks the order and repetition of story units, and assembles paired questions. We evaluate current models on our benchmark. Results show that matching performance depends on the target voice. The paired scene-to-story study reveals that (1) evaluated models still make matching errors when they separately identify the source and every candidate correctly, and (2) identification improves more consistently than scene-to-story matching across the evaluated Qwen model sizes. These findings show that successful motif identification does not ensure reliable matching across voices.

Recent progress on ARC-AGI-1 from disclosed architectures has come broadly from two regimes: heavy test-time compute over frontier models (evolutionary search, exhaustive sampling, extended chain-of-thought), or benchmark-specific training in which small models are fine-tuned on ARC data, often with task-specialized architectures. We study a third regime: an open-weight model in non-thinking mode (DeepSeek V3.2) under a strict budget, with no ARC-specific fine-tuning. We study what is recoverable through architecture alone, building agentic harnesses that decompose pattern-discovery and program-synthesis stages explicitly. First, we introduce an Explorer-Definer Pipeline that separates pattern discovery from executable transformation synthesis, implemented as a two-stage agent pipeline. Next, we present the Reflective Orchestrator, which augments the pipeline with autonomous exploration of new transformations when previous hypotheses fail on training pairs. On the ARC-AGI-1 public 400-task evaluation set, the pipeline reaches 57.50% pass@2 at $0.25 per task, and the orchestrator reaches 67.25% pass@2 at $0.62 per task. Together these architectures lift a 15.50% one-shot baseline by ~52 points without benchmark-specific training or heavy test-time compute. Furthermore, the orchestrator-driven lift tests a falsifiable diagnostic the pipeline produces; unbiased pass@k analysis suggests the pipeline is generation-bound, not selection-bound (selection via training-pair accuracy captures ~95% of the candidate ceiling) and predicts that significant improvement requires broader generation, not better ranking. The orchestrator implements this prediction via adaptive re-exploration and confirms it (unbiased pass@1 lift +9.81 pp, matching selection-mediated pass@2 lift). An additional pipeline ablation identifies its think tool as a significant component, with removal reducing pass@2 by 5.75 pp.

Background & Objectives: In the last decade, Machine learning research has grown rapidly, but large models are reaching their soft limits demonstrating diminishing returns and still lack solid reasoning abilities. These limits could be surpassed through synergistic combination of Machine Learning scalability and rigid reasoning. Methods: In this work, we propose a theoretical framework for reasoning through object-relations in an automated manner integrated with Artificial Neural Networks. We present a formal analysis of the Reasoning, and we show the theory in practice through a paradigm integrating Reasoning and Machine Learning. Results: This paradigm is a system that solves Intelligence Quotient problems without any prior knowledge of the problem. Our system achieves 98.03% solving rate corresponding to the top 1% percentile or 132-144 iq score. This result is only limited by the small size of the model and the processing capabilities of the machine it run on. Conclusions: With the integration of prior knowledge in the system and the expansion of the dataset, the system can be generalized to solve a large category of problems. The functionality of the system inherently favors the solution of such problems in few-shot or zero-shot attempts.

Looped transformers scale computational depth without increasing parameter count by repeatedly applying a shared transformer block and can be used for iterative refinement, where each loop rewrites a full fixed-size prediction in parallel. On difficult problems, such as those that require search-like computation, reaching a highly structured solution starting from noise can require long refinement trajectories. Learning such trajectories is challenging when training specifies only the target solution and provides no supervision over the intermediate refinement path. Diffusion models tackle this issue by corrupting data with varying magnitudes of noise and training the model to reverse it in a single step. However, this process misaligns training and testing behaviour. We introduce Denoising Recursion Models, a method that similarly corrupts data with noise but trains the model to reverse the corruption over multiple recursive steps. This strategy provides a tractable curriculum of intermediate states, while better aligning training with testing and incentivizing non-greedy, forward-looking generation. Through extensive experiments, we show this approach outperforms the Tiny Recursion Model (TRM) on ARC-AGI, where it recently achieved breakthrough performance.

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/

Neural reasoners such as Tiny Recursive Models (TRMs) solve complex problems by combining neural backbones with specialized inference schemes. Such inference schemes have been a central component of stochastic reasoning systems, where inference rules are applied to a stochastic model to derive answers to complex queries. In this work, we bridge these two paradigms by introducing Recursive Inference Machines (RIMs), a neural reasoning framework that explicitly incorporates recursive inference mechanisms inspired by classical inference engines. We show that TRMs can be expressed as an instance of RIMs, allowing us to extend them through a reweighting component, yielding better performance on challenging reasoning benchmarks, including ARC-AGI-1, ARC-AGI-2, and Sudoku Extreme. Furthermore, we show that RIMs can be used to improve reasoning on other tasks, such as the classification of tabular data, outperforming TabPFNs.

Humans exhibit remarkable flexibility in abstract reasoning, and can rapidly learn and apply rules from sparse examples. To investigate the cognitive strategies underlying this ability, we introduce the Cognitive Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (CogARC), a diverse human-adapted subset of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) which was originally developed to benchmark abstract reasoning in artificial intelligence. Across two experiments, CogARC was administered to a total of 260 human participants who freely generated solutions to 75 abstract visual reasoning problems. Success required inferring input-output rules from a small number of examples to transform the test input into one correct test output. Participants' behavior was recorded at high temporal resolution, including example viewing, edit sequences, and multi-attempt submissions. Participants were generally successful (mean accuracy ~90% for experiment 1 (n=40), ~80% for experiment 2 (n=220) across problems), but performance varied widely across problems and participants. Harder problems elicited longer deliberation times and greater divergence in solution strategies. Over the course of the task, participants initiated responses more quickly but showed a slight decline in accuracy, suggesting increased familiarity with the task structure rather than improved rule-learning ability. Importantly, even incorrect solutions were often highly convergent, even when the problem-solving trajectories differed in length and smoothness. Some trajectories progressed directly and efficiently toward a stable outcome, whereas others involved extended exploration or partial restarts before converging. Together, these findings highlight CogARC as a rich behavioral environment for studying human abstract reasoning, providing insight into how people generalize, misgeneralize, and adapt their strategies under uncertainty.