arXiv AI

Thought without systematicity? Evaluating reasoning models on rule induction tasks

The paper investigates whether current reasoning models exhibit systematicity—the idea that understanding one concept should extend to closely related variations—by extending rule induction tasks from cognitive science. Using task isomorphisms like recombination and substitution, the authors generate structurally equivalent task variants and test models on them. Results show that while models can solve the original tasks, they frequently fail on these equivalent variants, indicating a lack of systematicity in their reasoning abilities.

arXiv AI
Sep 18

What Do Current Systematic Generalization Tasks Miss? A Reasoning-Centered Analysis

The paper critiques current systematic generalization benchmarks for oversimplifying the task by relying on linear action composition, productivity-based tests, and action-explicit goals. It introduces TranSGrid, a new testbed that integrates deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning in a unified setting. Experiments with seven Transformers show a significant performance drop on TranSGrid compared to standard held-out tests, indicating that existing simplifications mask the true difficulty of systematic generalization.

By Chengwen Qi, Deheng Ye, Yatao Bian
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 11

A Multi-Stage Rule-Chaining Framework for Compositional and Interpretable Cognitive Reasoning

The paper introduces a multi-stage rule‑chaining framework for the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC), aiming to model cognitive generalization by inferring abstract rules from few examples. It combines three solvers—a deterministic rule discovery module, a pattern‑composition engine, and a structural abstraction layer—executed sequentially in a fallback hierarchy that reuses earlier reasoning traces to improve interpretability and generalization. The system achieved over 95% accuracy on ARC tasks, demonstrating strong performance across deterministic, compositional, and abstract categories.

By Deblina Kar
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 11

Reasoning as Pattern Matching: Shared Mechanisms in Human and LLM Everyday Reasoning

When large language models (LLMs) fail to generalize or make haphazard errors in reasoning, it is often taken as evidence that LLMs are not truly reasoning, but rather performing a kind of pattern matching. The implication is that people's behavior does not exhibit the same types of failures because human reasoning uses principled and abstract world models.

arXiv AI
Sep 3

Thinking effort aligns between humans and reasoning models in abductive reasoning

The study examines how the effort expended by large reasoning models (LRMs) compares to that of humans during abductive reasoning tasks. By analyzing reaction times and reasoning traces, the authors find that LRMs and humans exhibit similar patterns of effort and error types. They also demonstrate that decoding strategies allowing models to explore multiple reasoning paths further align the models’ reasoning costs with human effort.

By Henry Arthur
arXiv AI
Jun 9

MixReasoning: Switching Modes to Think

arXiv:2510. 06052v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Reasoning models enhance performance by tackling problems in a step-by-step manner, decomposing them into sub-problems and exploring long chains of thought before producing an answer.

By Haiquan Lu, Gongfan Fang, Xinyin Ma, Qi Li, Xinchao Wang
arXiv AI
Aug 17

The Metacognitive Bottleneck: Japanese Riddles Reveal Fundamental Limits of Machine Insight and Self-Evaluation in Reasoning AI

arXiv:2509. 14704v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Benchmark saturation and training-data contamination increasingly obscure whether reported gains in large language models (LLMs) reflect genuine advances in reasoning or familiarity with recurring patterns in benchmark problems.

By Masaharu Mizumoto, Dat Nguyen, Zhiheng Han, Xingfu Li, Yo Nakawake, Le Minh Nguyen