REVIEW 5 cited by
The ConceptARC Benchmark: Evaluating Understanding and Generalization in the ARC Domain
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
The abilities to form and abstract concepts is key to human intelligence, but such abilities remain lacking in state-of-the-art AI systems. There has been substantial research on conceptual abstraction in AI, particularly using idealized domains such as Raven's Progressive Matrices and Bongard problems, but even when AI systems succeed on such problems, the systems are rarely evaluated in depth to see if they have actually grasped the concepts they are meant to capture. In this paper we describe an in-depth evaluation benchmark for the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC), a collection of few-shot abstraction and analogy problems developed by Chollet [2019]. In particular, we describe ConceptARC, a new, publicly available benchmark in the ARC domain that systematically assesses abstraction and generalization abilities on a number of basic spatial and semantic concepts. ConceptARC differs from the original ARC dataset in that it is specifically organized around "concept groups" -- sets of problems that focus on specific concepts and that are vary in complexity and level of abstraction. We report results on testing humans on this benchmark as well as three machine solvers: the top two programs from a 2021 ARC competition and OpenAI's GPT-4. Our results show that humans substantially outperform the machine solvers on this benchmark, showing abilities to abstract and generalize concepts that are not yet captured by AI systems. We believe that this benchmark will spur improvements in the development of AI systems for conceptual abstraction and in the effective evaluation of such systems.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
Latent Reasoning in TRMs is Secretly a Policy Improvement Operator
Recursive reasoning in TRMs is reinterpreted as policy improvement, and a stepwise denoising supervision scheme (DIS) cuts forward passes 18× while improving small-model ARC scores.
-
EXP-Bench: Can AI Conduct AI Research Experiments?
EXP-Bench is a new benchmark of 461 end-to-end AI research experiments, and leading AI agents complete fewer than 1 percent of them successfully.
-
Behavioural vs. Representational Systematicity in End-to-End Models: An Opinionated Survey
A survey showing that common systematic generalization benchmarks measure behavioural systematicity, not the representational systematicity that Fodor and Pylyshyn's challenge requires, and mapping them onto Hadley's ...
-
From Reasoning to Generalization: Knowledge-Augmented LLMs for ARC Benchmark
A staged knowledge-prompting method (KAAR) improves LLM test accuracy on ARC by about 5 absolute points over repeated-sampling plan-guided code generation, reaching 35% with GPT-o3-mini.
-
Interpretable GOHR Agents via Sparse Autoencoders
In a two-rule GOHR task, SAEs on frozen Transformer decision-token embeddings recover selective shape/bucket concepts and interpretable probe-then-switch strategy dimensions.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.