Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Towards Learning to Reason: Comparing LLMs with Neuro-Symbolic on Arithmetic Relations in Abstract Reasoning

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

arxiv 2412.05586 v1 pith:LS3OPROZ submitted 2024-12-07 cs.AI cs.LGcs.SC

classification cs.AIcs.LGcs.SC
keywords arithmeticaccuracyrulesvisualabstractarlcneuro-symbolicreasoning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

This work compares large language models (LLMs) and neuro-symbolic approaches in solving Raven's progressive matrices (RPM), a visual abstract reasoning test that involves the understanding of mathematical rules such as progression or arithmetic addition. Providing the visual attributes directly as textual prompts, which assumes an oracle visual perception module, allows us to measure the model's abstract reasoning capability in isolation. Despite providing such compositionally structured representations from the oracle visual perception and advanced prompting techniques, both GPT-4 and Llama-3 70B cannot achieve perfect accuracy on the center constellation of the I-RAVEN dataset. Our analysis reveals that the root cause lies in the LLM's weakness in understanding and executing arithmetic rules. As a potential remedy, we analyze the Abductive Rule Learner with Context-awareness (ARLC), a neuro-symbolic approach that learns to reason with vector-symbolic architectures (VSAs). Here, concepts are represented with distributed vectors s.t. dot products between encoded vectors define a similarity kernel, and simple element-wise operations on the vectors perform addition/subtraction on the encoded values. We find that ARLC achieves almost perfect accuracy on the center constellation of I-RAVEN, demonstrating a high fidelity in arithmetic rules. To stress the length generalization capabilities of the models, we extend the RPM tests to larger matrices (3x10 instead of typical 3x3) and larger dynamic ranges of the attribute values (from 10 up to 1000). We find that the LLM's accuracy of solving arithmetic rules drops to sub-10%, especially as the dynamic range expands, while ARLC can maintain a high accuracy due to emulating symbolic computations on top of properly distributed representations. Our code is available at https://github.com/IBM/raven-large-language-models.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Can VLMs Reason Robustly? A Neuro-Symbolic Investigation

    cs.LG 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    End-to-end fine-tuned VLMs fail to induce reasoning functions under object-count covariate shifts; VLC (VLM concepts + circuits) yields consistently higher OOD accuracy.

  2. Large Language Models Show Signs of Alignment with Human Neurocognition During Abstract Reasoning

    q-bio.NC 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Only the largest tested LLMs (about 70 billion parameters) match human accuracy on an abstract reasoning task, and the internal geometry of their best layers correlates moderately with human frontal EEG activity.

Pith tools