arXiv subjects

Solim LeGris

Publications and source records attributed to Solim LeGris.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

ConceptARC at Scale: Studying Conceptual Understanding in Reasoning Models

Large reasoning models (LRMs) perform well on challenging benchmarks, yet it remains unclear whether they form generalizable abstractions across conceptually related reasoning tasks. The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) provides a controlled testbed for studying abstraction, requiring solvers to infer transformation rules over two-dimensional grids from a small set of examples. While ARC evaluates rule abstraction within individual tasks, different tasks may share higher-level structure despite requiring different transformations$\unicode{x2014}$for example, several tasks may involve reasoning about objects contained within other objects. Benchmarks such as ConceptARC capture this structure by grouping ARC-style tasks into recurring spatial and semantic concepts, but they often contain only a few manually constructed tasks per concept. We introduce ConceptARC at Scale, a generator for creating thousands of ARC-style tasks targeting a specific concept. Using this generator, we construct ConceptARC-100, a dataset of 1,600 new, manually reviewed tasks, with 100 tasks for each of the 16 concepts defined by ConceptARC$\unicode{x2014}$ten times the size of the original benchmark. We evaluate a range of recent LRMs and models trained from scratch on ConceptARC-100 to characterize which concepts they solve reliably and where they struggle. We further analyze the models' internal representations and find clear semantic structure: task representations cluster according to the operations applied to objects, such as recoloring, removal, or translation, even when realized through substantially different rules and scenarios. Together, our results suggest that models form stable abstractions of transformation operations that generalize across diverse tasks.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Synthesizing symbolic models of human and machine reasoning at scale

Symbolic models offer a powerful account of cognition, but their scope has historically been limited by the need for hand-engineering and computational tractability. We show how advances in artificial intelligence (AI) can scale symbolic modeling and help overcome these engineering limitations. We introduce Behavior-Conditioned Symbolic Synthesis (BCSS)---an approach for automated search of interpretable, deterministic symbolic programs that verifiably reproduce behavior---and apply it to model both human and machine behavior across hundreds of challenging reasoning problems. Analyzing these programs reveals that both people and machines tend to oversimplify, adopt rules that are partial explanations for their observations, and misinfer dependencies between problem features. These shared signatures are modulated by available resources, with reasoning effort predicting the extent to which machines simplify and explain their observations. Together, these results point to underlying mechanisms reminiscent of satisficing in both people and machines, and illustrate how BCSS offers a general approach for interpreting and comparing rule-based reasoning of humans and black-box AI systems.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

H-ARC: A Robust Estimate of Human Performance on the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus Benchmark

The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) is a visual program synthesis benchmark designed to test challenging out-of-distribution generalization in humans and machines. Since 2019, limited progress has been observed on the challenge using existing artificial intelligence methods. Comparing human and machine performance is important for the validity of the benchmark. While previous work explored how well humans can solve tasks from the ARC benchmark, they either did so using only a subset of tasks from the original dataset, or from variants of ARC, and therefore only provided a tentative estimate of human performance. In this work, we obtain a more robust estimate of human performance by evaluating 1729 humans on the full set of 400 training and 400 evaluation tasks from the original ARC problem set. We estimate that average human performance lies between 73.3% and 77.2% correct with a reported empirical average of 76.2% on the training set, and between 55.9% and 68.9% correct with a reported empirical average of 64.2% on the public evaluation set. However, we also find that 790 out of the 800 tasks were solvable by at least one person in three attempts, suggesting that the vast majority of the publicly available ARC tasks are in principle solvable by typical crowd-workers recruited over the internet. Notably, while these numbers are slightly lower than earlier estimates, human performance still greatly exceeds current state-of-the-art approaches for solving ARC. To facilitate research on ARC, we publicly release our dataset, called H-ARC (human-ARC), which includes all of the submissions and action traces from human participants.

cs.AI↗