arXiv Machine Learning By Deblina Kar

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

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

arXiv AI
Jul 9

Explain Before You Answer: A Survey on Compositional Visual Reasoning

arXiv:2508. 17298v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Compositional visual reasoning has emerged as a key research frontier in multimodal AI, aiming to endow machines with the human-like ability to decompose visual scenes, ground intermediate concepts, and perform multi-step logical inference.

By Fucai Ke, Joy Hsu, Zhixi Cai, Zixian Ma, Xin Zheng, Xindi Wu, Sukai Huang, Weiqing Wang, Pari Delir Haghighi, Gholamreza Haffari, Ranjay Krishna, Jiajun Wu, Hamid Rezatofighi
arXiv AI
Sep 24

PotARCin: Multi-Dimensional Evaluation of Skill Acquisition in Abstract Reasoning Tasks

PotARCin expands the ARC benchmark by evaluating abstract reasoning across five dimensions—Definition, Classification, Constrained Generation, Editing, and Inversion—using programmatic generation of new task instances. The study shows a 25‑52 percentage‑point performance gap between standard ARC evaluation and PotARCin, and reveals that multi‑dimensional assessment can reorder models that appear equivalent under single‑metric accuracy. Additionally, a new held‑out set, P‑ARC, demonstrates low model accuracy (1‑8%) across all dimensions, highlighting the need for more comprehensive tests of abstract reasoning.

By Claas Beger, Ryan Yi, Melanie Mitchell
arXiv AI
Sep 15

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.

By Simon Schug, Brenden M. Lake